Reverie
TERB In Need of a Banner
Toronto Escorts

Damn climate change!

Previous Thread Next Thread
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
blackrock13 said:
In the same interview he also said, “It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain.'
Click to expand...
True. I agree with what Lovelock is saying.

I'm not a "denier." I don't claim to know for certain what the future holds. I have maintained -- in both this thread and the others -- that I am a skeptic. My view is that we don't know whether man-made CO2 emissions affect the climate.

That said, global warming activism is definitely a religion.

Its followers are militantly devout in their beliefs, regardless of what evidence emerges. All you have to do is look at the struggles that the IPCC and others have faced in admitting that they don't really know what is happening with the climate.
 
B

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,087
1
0
Moviefan-2 said:
True. I agree with what Lovelock is saying.

I'm not a "denier." I don't claim to know for certain what the future holds. I have maintained -- in both this thread and the others -- that I am a skeptic. My view is that we don't know whether man-made CO2 emissions affect the climate.

That said, global warming activism is definitely a religion.

Its followers are militantly devout in their beliefs, regardless of what evidence emerges. All you have to do is look at the struggles that the IPCC and others have faced in admitting that they don't really know what is happening with the climate.
Click to expand...
Good grief!!!!!!

 
S

staggerspool

Member
Mar 7, 2004
708
0
16
Moviefan-2 said:
True. I agree with what Lovelock is saying.

I'm not a "denier." I don't claim to know for certain what the future holds. I have maintained -- in both this thread and the others -- that I am a skeptic. My view is that we don't know whether man-made CO2 emissions affect the climate.

That said, global warming activism is definitely a religion.

Its followers are militantly devout in their beliefs, regardless of what evidence emerges. All you have to do is look at the struggles that the IPCC and others have faced in admitting that they don't really know what is happening with the climate.
Click to expand...
I love how guys like this are happy to define huge groups of people, denying them their right to varied and considered opinions, lumping them all together as zealots. That's what he means by "religion," right?

He also carefully designates himself as a "skeptic," the safest of all possible self definitions. Can't go wrong there, he's right whatever happens.

In my view, skeptics should just keep it to themselves until they have the guts to take a position. They actually have NOTHING to offer to a discussion. Ultimately one has to judge information, and not taking the risk of being wrong isn't useful.

And, of course, I doubt he's really a skeptic. He's just a closet denier.
 
B

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,087
1
0
staggerspool said:
I love how guys like this are happy to define huge groups of people, denying them their right to varied and considered opinions, lumping them all together as zealots. That's what he means by "religion," right?

He also carefully designates himself as a "skeptic," the safest of all possible self definitions. Can't go wrong there, he's right whatever happens.

In my view, skeptics should just keep it to themselves until they have the guts to take a position. They actually have NOTHING to offer to a discussion. Ultimately one has to judge information, and not taking the risk of being wrong isn't useful.

And, of course, I doubt he's really a skeptic. He's just a closet denier.
Click to expand...
As Charles Anderson Dana put it, a mugwump, a person who sits on a fence with their head one side of the fence and their "wump" on the other.
 
G

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,266
0
0
Moviefan-2 said:
It`s actually shocking how much you completely missed the point. I`m not sure if that is mostly due to your struggles with the English language or whether it`s due to your inability to understand the science. Maybe both.
Click to expand...
Fail.
Ok, back to dishonest.

You are still acting as if the article you presented to make a point didn`t show that you were wrong.
It debunked your main claim, that of this fictional `pause` in climate change.
Dishonest.


Done. In great detail.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

You may wish to speak to your doctor about your memory issues. It wasn`t that long ago this was all provided to you.
Click to expand...

Dishonest again.
You were shown to be wrong on every single point through that thread.
Go back to your lobbyist site and dig up the graphs again, I`ll debunk them.
Are you that afraid of being shown to be dishonest a second time in one thread?
 
G

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,266
0
0
Moviefan-2 said:
In that case, the only explanation I can come up with to explain your militant refusal to accept the results is to go back to what James Lovelock and others have been saying about the global warming movement.



http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion
Click to expand...

Only an idiot would claim that the man who made up his own myth/religion about the earth being a sentient being/god that can fix itself is an expert on science.
You are using someone who is creating his own religion to claim that legit science is a religion.
That's so stupid its pathetic.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
groggy said:
You were shown to be wrong on every single point through that thread.
Click to expand...
Right. This from the guy who had to post an "adjusted" chart where the IPCC's predictions were all completely rewritten -- after the fact -- so that they didn't look so spectacularly wrong. :biggrin1:
 
G

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,266
0
0
Moviefan-2 said:
Right. This from the guy who had to post an "adjusted" chart where the IPCC's predictions were all completely rewritten -- after the fact -- so that they didn't look so spectacularly wrong. :biggrin1:
Click to expand...
I forgot that you don't understand the scientific method, that it's so advanced to you as to appear like a religion.

All climatologists make theories and adjust their methods as the models and data gets better. I know you think once they make a projection they should stop all research and wait to see how it fares, but scientists prefer to keep getting better through work and practice.

That's part of the scientific method.

And where is your spectacular data?
Dog eat your homework ?
 
B

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,312
6,463
113
groggy said:
...
And where is your spectacular data?
Dog eat your homework ?
Click to expand...
Same place as his evidence supporting a non-human impact theory.




Meanwhile in the scientific community today.....

Study shows modern ocean acidification is fast outpacing changes in the past
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...-is-fast-outpacing-changes-in-the-past/28813/

Seems atmospheric CO2 is changing the oceans pH at a rate much faster than any time in the past. What are the chances that we are currently in a unique point in the Earth's natural cycle?
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
basketcase said:
Same place as his evidence supporting a non-human impact theory.
Click to expand...
"Theory"?

You're telling us you genuinely don't believe there were ever any changes to the climate prior to the Industrial Revolution?

Wow. Even Al Gore wouldn't say something that preposterous.
 
B

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,087
1
0
Moviefan-2 said:
"Theory"?

You're telling us you genuinely don't believe there were ever any changes to the climate prior to the Industrial Revolution?

Wow. Even Al Gore wouldn't say something that preposterous.
Click to expand...
wow,



Of course, that not what was claimed or reported on, but you keep on coming. It's about the 'rate of change' since that is critical. Clearly you don't understand even the simplest things.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
blackrock13 said:
It's about the 'rate of change' since that is critical.
Click to expand...
Correction -- you mean the "projected" rate of change. The predictions were spectacularly wrong.

The current data don't show any evidence of anything unusual having occurred. Certainly, the Earth's temperature hasn't changed the way the IPCC expected.

The only way you can completely dismiss the possibility that changes in the climate are due to natural factors is if you don't believe there were ever any changes prior to the Industrial Revolution.

A preposterous suggestion.
 
B

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,087
1
0
Moviefan-2 said:
Correction -- you mean the "projected" rate of change. The predictions were spectacularly wrong.

The current data don't show any evidence of anything unusual having occurred. Certainly, the Earth's temperature hasn't changed the way the IPCC expected.

The only way you can completely dismiss the possibility that changes in the climate were due to natural factors is if you don't believe there were ever any changes prior to the Industrial Revolution.

A preposterous suggestion.
Click to expand...
I can tell you from first hand experience that the rates of change have increased, having seen the changes off and on over a 30 year period. Not that long, compared to the 250 year+ horizons now available of climate, but certainly longer than you. You can dismiss that, because the one thing that has change, in the short term since the 1850's and in the long term, co, since the dawn of man, is the human output on earth, in headcount, human garbage, effect on the earth's ability to repair/recover and industrial effluence, which is becoming harder and harder for the earth to do.

The oceans and lakes simply can't handle the pressures put on them by modern society as they have in the past because of exactly that, modern society, a condition never seen in the history of mankind. It may be 'natural', then again so is cyanid, but it certainly isn't good.
 
G

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,266
0
0
Moviefan-2 said:
Correction -- you mean the "projected" rate of change. The predictions were spectacularly wrong.

The current data don't show any evidence of anything unusual having occurred. Certainly, the Earth's temperature hasn't changed the way the IPCC expected.
Click to expand...
Moviefan-2 said:
The evidence doesn't support your belief. That's the problem.
Click to expand...

I already challenged you to back up this false declaration.
Where are the charts, data and comparisons?

Or did you actually read your support articles and realize that they contradict everything you're saying in advance this time?

Prove it or give up on this one.
 
Insidious Von

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
38,714
6,711
113
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom