• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

birdman said:
So you can't find one single anecdote, ok.

Incredible mean impossible to believe, so maybe you should check your numbers.

Research dollars are flowing to climate change studies at an alarming rate because 1) scientist are testing the theory of climate change, 2) its an alarming subject with potentially incredible consequences.

Lastly, you responded to a post I wrote in response to Sailor's assertions that scientists are in it for the money and the tenure wherein I suggested that the politicians are the ones really raking in the profits off this subject not the scientist and perhaps some skepticism should be directed at their political motivations. In your response you called me naive and were shocked that I don't understand the nature of the IPCC. So why the fuck did you respond if you don't dispute that scientists are not getting rich off fabricating climate science. This whole notion that scientists have something to gain by lying about climate change is simply delusional.
Click to expand...

Listen - I could lead you to water but you wouldn’t drink. The bottom line is you don’t know Jack fucking squat about the earths climate system or how it works.
 
birdman said:
No serious climate scientists are doing this. Journalists and politicians maybe, but no serious scientist is doing this.
Click to expand...

This is probably true.

And then please answer this: why do so may lubes on these boards simultaneously claim science as their authority, while constantly employing the crude, dishonest rhetoric labeling those who disagree as "climate change deniers" in order to defend views supposedly based on science. Indeed, why would anybody need to do that? If science supports you, why do you need to be so obviously and transparently dishonest, even with yourself?
 
Because the scientists have reached near consensus and people like you continue to reject what they’re concluding in the name of skepticism.
 
Demonwolverine said:
Are you comparing the technological advancements of a first world country to that of a third? If you're really all about boosting third world countries, then how about this: The UN forces all developed, first world countries to abide by climate laws, while third world countries are exempt. You could even throw an extra tax for solar on the developed countries. That would really force energy development in third world countries. I never knew you wanted to spread the wealth so much. I commend you for that.
Click to expand...

I’d welcome boosting the 3rd world and at the same time ridding the world of a hypothesis borne up on lies and manipulations by Carbonistas* in order to advance a political ideology of world governance.

* I’m claiming “Carbonistas” :)
 
sailordeac said:
Everyone accepts that the climate changes. It would be nonsensical to think otherwise. The climate has constantly changed, is constantly changing, and will continue to do so in the future. Simplistically to try to label as "climate change deniers" those who have serious questions about various aspects of a particular highly politicized and perhaps over-exaggerated theory trying to account for recent climate developments that are influenced by many factors, with complex not necessarily well-understood impact on each other, is an act of deliberate distortion, misrepresentation, dis-ingeniousness and bad faith. Why do you need to deceive yourself?
Click to expand...

then I amend "climate change deniers" to "people that deny that human-created climate change that, unchecked, will create devastating effects for humankind"

what do you think I have to gain by believing that human behavior has a negative impact on the climate and the long-term ability for humans to live life on earth?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Because the scientists have reached near consensus and people like you continue to reject what they’re concluding in the name of skepticism.
Click to expand...

you need to accuse others of bad faith, argue dishonestly, and smear people who disagree with you because science supports you?

you have a wonderful view of science
 
one might argue that, in an discussion about science, the one with scientific support could be granted the right to accuse others of bad faith when they're just arguing with feelings.
 
I would respect sailor so much more if he just said, “IDGAF, not going to affect me” instead of the gaslighting he employs instead
 
sailordeac said:
you need to accuse others of bad faith, argue dishonestly, and smear people who disagree with you because science supports you?

you have a wonderful view of science
Click to expand...

I do. I do the same for anti-vaxxers too because these are the types of world views that get idiots elected.
 
sailordeac said:
you need to accuse others of bad faith, argue dishonestly, and smear people who disagree with you because science supports you?

you have a wonderful view of science
Click to expand...

This is one of the funniest posts in Tunnels history, IMO
 
"You feel the need to make fun of people who don't believe in gravity because they disagree with you because science supports you?"


....yes?
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
then I amend "climate change deniers" to "people that deny that human-created climate change that, unchecked, will create devastating effects for humankind"

what do you think I have to gain by believing that human behavior has a negative impact on the climate and the long-term ability for humans to live life on earth?
Click to expand...

I agree, what you are doing and saying makes no sense.

However, in order to retain your standing as a lube you must signal virtue regularly. And if you lost your lubery, then where would you be? So, I understand.
 
sailordeac said:
I agree, what you are doing and saying makes no sense.

However, in order to retain your standing as a lube you must signal virtue regularly. And if you lost your lubery, then where would you be? So, I understand.
Click to expand...

"Signal virtue"

"Political correctness"

"Lubery"

Yep this is definitely a reasonable, intelligent person whose views we should treat seriously.
 
sailordeac said:
you need to accuse others of bad faith, argue dishonestly, and smear people who disagree with you because science supports you?

you have a wonderful view of science
Click to expand...

Do you know what the word smear means? Calling some one a “climate denier” is not a smear...it’s a short hand descriptive phrase for some one who ignores the mass of data linking climate change to human industrial pollution. If you are taking that as a smear it might say more about how you feel regarding your position than about the person using the phrase.
 
sailordeac said:
I am not an anti-vaxxer, and anti-vaxxers have nothing to do with this discussion anyway. But if you feel more secure flailing haplessly at straw men, be my guest.
Click to expand...

Anti-vaxxers are arguing against science just like you're arguing against science here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top