patrick.net

Dan, the title of this thread. :-O :-) ROFLMAO!
I subscribe to this video series on youtube. It's good stuff.

Killing people who disagree with you will, of course, partially solve the problem.

Killing all people will completely solve the problem.

Kill the people, Kill THEM ALL!!!

1

The dweeb in the video is quite the propaganda artist with all of that fake, liberal intellectualizing shit. All from the inarguable, doctrinaire, unassailable premise. Hone in on the myriad ways people think to convince them that they shouldn't think at all. Just let all the smart people think for you.

Slippery slope, black or white, false cause, veiled ad hominem i.e. people who disagree are primitive, stupid, calloused or greedy.
appeal to authority, composition/division.

"We know best, so just don't worry your pretty little head about it, we'll take care of the heavy lifting, just buy into our catastrophizing screed, and you can be smart, too, just like us!"

Government funds a lot of research. Scientists discovered a long time ago that hitching their wagon to a perceived catastrophic outcome was a money machine for research and notoriety/fame. Government discovered that scientific authority, when they held the purse strings, could be used to pursue political agendas. Seems like both sides got locked in, no way to change course, so just pursue the canard to the bitter end.

Nothing the politicians would do would make a dent in global warming, anyway, so even if it is true, may as well sit back for the ride and hope an asteroid hits first.

No need to douse the barbeque...it's out of our control. Always has been...always will be.

Dan8267 says

Why do some people deny climate change? Turns out, they are idiots.

Case in point, Shrek/SoftShell.

So I post a chart showing climate change, and you say I am denying it...I see....

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

Why do some people deny climate change? Turns out, they are idiots.

Case in point, Shrek/SoftShell.

SoftShell says

So I post a chart showing climate change, and you say I am denying it...I see....

SoftShell says

No need to douse the barbeque...it's out of our control. Always has been...always will be.

You are denying man-made climate change with debunked myths. You are also denying that there are things we can do to mitigate the severe impact of climate change, which is another dumb-ass tactic of people who simply want to continue stealing the public resources of the world. And that's exactly why it's appropriate that your assets get seized to compensate your victims.

There will always be terrorism, it's out of our control, therefore we should do nothing. If it doesn't work with terrorism, it doesn't work with climate change.

I thought the weather man was the one everybody made fun of because he could consistently be wrong and still keep his job. Planet homeostasis is poorly understood, only partially spot measured, and too chaotic to predict much less control, and yet global warming has achieved the status of religion. Perfect banner for rabid, liberal obsession and the politics of control.

What does that mean? Hmm, take the guys who are wrong all the time, and let them tell the rest of us what to do? Makes sense.

Human solipsism taken to bug eyed zealotry.

Ceffer says

the weather man was the one everybody made fun of because he could consistently be wrong and still keep his job

Ceffer says

take the guys who are wrong all the time, and let them tell the rest of us what to do

Ceffer, you are confusing Meteorology and Climatology.

Yeah, climatology which is about eons can be spot checked for minuscule short term trends to draw sweeping conclusions, that's different. That's not weather, that's hard science.

That's because we have such perfect information about the past.

Global Warming seems to ignore the past as much as it catastrophizes about the short term present. Used to be that climatologists changed the "catastrophe tune" every couple of years or so, depending on if currently there had been a bad winter, a drought or a hot summer, just to keep themselves in the news.

Today, we are entering an ice age. Yesterday, it was imminent that in ten years we would resemble the surface of Venus.

It's more that people are sucked in by current, fresh observable disasters and are easily convinced they represent a permanent trend. That's being gulled, not educated.

And I'll die an idiot at the ripe old age of a 100, sitting on my porch next to the thermometer that reads the same exact tempature that it reads right now.

For those of us who believe climate change is real: why do we not do anything about it?

For one thing, yeah the impact *now* is virtually 0. Even if you could positively link climate change to some hurricanes, people would still live 99.99% of their lives exactly like they did before. Severe impact will not be there for years, probably 100 years.

Now if you consider what will happen in the next 100 years, I'm honestly not convinced climate change is really the dominant threat.
I would say overpopulation is the dominant threat. The perspective of having 13 billions people on the planet (including 5 in Africa) should give anyone pause. In this 100 years, if history is any guide, you will probably have at least 1 world war. Maybe a massive plagues. Some countries will run out of ground water. Most fish will run out. Lions and elephants will likely go extinct outside of zoos.
Climate change is like the cherry on that cake.

Also remember, If we were using only fossil fuels we would run into a wall of costs anyway, and within 15-25 years the sources of energy will radically change toward solar - just because of costs...
I think this alone should make people feel a little bit better about climate change.

No, the only solution is to give all your money to environmental lawyers and pray, pray, pray to Al Gore to save you! Pray!

The reason nobody does anything is because a few million, even a billion, recycling paper or plastic is bullshit that has no impact. Electric generation is very solvable; transportation is the big problem at 30% of the emissions and no good alternative except the death of the suburb and personal car commutes. With car ownership exploding, it wouldn't even do much good to get to 70-80mpg, a very far-out number that might have been a solution in the 70s-80s when Third World economic growth was in the toilet..

Heraclitusstudent says

I would say overpopulation is the dominant threat. The perspective of having 13 billions people on the planet (including 5 in Africa) should give anyone pause. In this 100 years, if history is any guide, you will probably have at least 1 world war. Maybe a massive plagues. Some countries will run out of ground water. Most fish will run out. Lions and elephants will likely go extinct outside of zoos.

Agreed. Crime, Violence, Weakness of Labor Rights, Pollution, and General Ferocious Stupidity are all linked to Overpopulation.

When we rely on self-discipline to reduce the birthrate, all we're doing is ensuring those responsible enough don't reproduce, and end up with Idiocracy. The only way to control population is to pay dumbasses to have permanent, irreversible Hysterectomies and Vasectomies. Many morons would give up their right to have unlimited kids in order to buy a Jetski or get new Rims - but the same would scream MUH RIGHTS!! MUH GODS!! if the government just used sticks.

Hell, offer an incentive of a tummy tuck or nose job along with the surgery as a sweetener.

Also, sterilization must be Mandatory if you're on benefits more than 1 year in order to continue to receive it, refusal would be reckless endangerment of a child(-ren) you already have (since you'd stop getting food stamps), so kids would be taken away if you don't get it.

Speaking of volcanoes, Gillen D’Arcy Wood has written about the far reaching effects of the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1816. See this NYTimes article How a Volcanic Eruption in 1815 Darkened the World but Colored the Arts for a nice summary. He ties the aftermath of the eruption to Frankenstein, vampires, and the near ruination of Jefferson's farm at Monticello.

just what we need, another belief system for the double digit IQ's to bicker about

Keep it simple. Pollution is bad and we should work to curb it.

Everyone knows the climate changes. Ditch the word belief from your message if you really see it as a problem worth solving

errc says

Keep it simple. Pollution is bad and we should work to curb it.

Everyone knows the climate changes. Ditch the word belief from your message if you really see it as a problem worth solving

I've learned a long time ago this isn't about the environment anymore it's about mind control and creating more venues people must stay Polically correct or risk legal ostricizing, from work, home, school, everywhere. The EU is actually trying to create a very special place in critics jail for all of the denyers.

What we're getting in the meantime is the most over fishing ever, the most anual deforestization ever, the most water pollution ever, the most general abuse of land and natural resources every year that tops every previous disasterous dismal records. They do so while demanding every keeps looking up, in the name of Science.

When this is over I'm going to punch Science in it's tired looking stupid fucking face.

Mr Happygoluckofus says

The EU is actually trying to create a very special place in critics jail for all of the denyers.

Really? Got some proof.

Your argument seems to be that pollution is a problem but can't be solved. Instead we get a bunch of tree-hugging, do-gooders who are steeped in political correctness, but ultimately have no effect on solving the problem. Because it can't be solved you'd like to punch science in the face. Is that a correct assessment of your position?

rooemoore says

Your argument seems to be that pollution is a problem but can't be solved. I

No dillhole I'm saying "Pollution" isn't even the argument.

My hamburger, and light bulb is.

And somehow it's all tied to Huricane Hudini the National Weather servier(c) brought to you by The Home Depot, and Publix, tried to sell South Florida over the week end.

Relax everyone, we have a solution.
S + EC = ZP

S = Solar
EC = Electric Cars
ZP = Zero Pollution

The cost of solar keeps falling, and electric cars are replacing Gasmobiles. The oil companies are in a panic, oil producers are frightened, and utilities are scared to death.
I'm willing to bet not a single fossil fuel power plant will be built in the 1920's, while a large number will be mothballed. They cannot compete with solar panels that will soon be commoditized, and free fuel from the sun.
The energy cost to run electric cars is 75% cheaper than gasmobiles in most states. I see a clear and bright future. :)

Ironman says

Strategist says

I'm willing to bet not a single fossil fuel power plant will be built in the 1920's, while a large number will be mothballed.

Predicting something from 90 years ago?

he he he. Trust you to catch the details. I read it twice and still did not catch it.

Ironman says

That's OK, I though you had a time machine or something... I was hoping you would share it!!

Sure, this will get you anywhere you want to go:

I only pick out facts & charts that support my arguments.
It's not cherry picking,it's Brilliant Trolling.

worth bumping this thread in light of recent climate change denying bullshit

Global Warming skeptics are normal thinking people its the global warming advocates that are idiots after all back in the 1970's we were suppost to be having Global Cooling and a New Ice Age and the global warming advocates are con men(Al Gore)and the cult of GAIA demands the sacrifice of virgins and kids

Spurwing Plover says

Global Warming skeptics are normal thinking people its the global warming advocates that are idiots after all back in the 1970's we were suppost to be having Global Cooling and a New Ice Age

This is a lie. Now when I expose the lie for what it is, are you man enough to admit you were wrong, that you were duped, and to change your position based on the facts? Of course not. You don't care that you are wrong or that what you are saying is a lie. And this is why climate change deniers should bear the entire cost of climate change through taxation and asset forfeiture. There obstinance is what created the problem, so they should have to pay the full financial cost of the problem.

Even if what Plover said were true -- and it's not -- a mistake in the 1970s would not have invalidated 40 years of scientific research and hard-core evidence detailing the exact science of climate change, and yes, it's pretty damn exact despite climate being a complex system. There are literally tens of thousands of independent lines of evidence stating that climate change, including global warming, is already happening as are the consequences of climate change including sea level rises which are threatening trillions of dollars of real estate along coastal states. These lines of evidence have been independently confirmed by hundreds of thousands of scientists all of which have a huge incentive to prove each other wrong.

But to the point, during the 1970s climate scientists did NOT say we were going to have an ice age and in fact predicted global warming.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

Holy shit! You mean Plover just lied? Yes, he just lied. He like all climate change deniers repeats the same debunked lies over an over again.

And Plover and his ilk are not skeptics. They are deniers. Skeptics demand evidence and base their belief on it. Deniers ignore evidence that contradicts their agenda. At this point no one who denies climate change is a skeptic. The evidence is overwhelming. There is literally thousands of times more evidence that climate change is happening right now than there is that George Washington fought in the American Revolution. As such, it is more ridiculous to deny climate change than it is to deny that Washington played any part in the American Revolution.

To put a nail in the coffin of the "Ice-Age Predicted" lie, here is detailed explanation of why the claim is simply a blatant lie.

www.youtube.com/embed/_F6bq0l18Ng

And here's a whitepaper debunking the ice age lie.

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then.

Can it get any clearer? Even a cursory Google search reveals thousands of sources debunking this lie. So feel free to challenge me for more evidence.

OK, so Plover -- or should I call you Call It Crazy? (not entirely sure, but highly suspicious given that he registered today just to respond to this old thread and CIC cannot using his common account) -- are you willing to admit that you are wrong and change your position now that the evidence has been presented to you on a silver platter?

I've been following AGW/climate change info for years & I think we are fucked.
But I also have no problem being wrong,possibly being the first time.
If my agreement with the science is correct then.. Die! Stupid Deniers! PHUCKING DIE!
And watch your loved one suffer. HA!HA!HA!

Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

That is why all the Republican congressmen and hate-radio pundits and angry Breitbart sheep who have gagged and intimidated climate researchers into silence are now considered "leftists."

Tenpoundbass says

it's about mind control and creating more venues people must stay Polically correct or risk legal ostricizing

Well, they won't faze or deceive you, what with your multi-source information feed drawn from Breitbart, Breitbart, Breitbart, Breitbart and Breitbart.

jazz music says

Dan8267 says

There is literally thousands of times more evidence that climate change is happening right now than there is that George Washington fought in the American Revolution.

Heheh, how did you come up with that one?

Even by the most conservative counting, there are tens of thousands of lines of evidence that climate change is happening from core samples across the world, to tree rings from every land mass, to satellite imagery, to the migration patterns of countless species, to the life cycle and population of ocean algae. There are maybe a few dozen lines of evidence that George Washington fought in the American Revolution. Even having five independent verification of historical fact would be considered extremely strong by historians' standards. The lines of evidence for climate change, however, are over a thousand fold greater. Every core sample from different parts of the world is an independent verification of climate change. You simply don't get that level of independent verification for historical facts.

Nature records in far more detail and with far more redundant copies than human historians and record keepers. So my statement is true without exaggeration.

HydroCabron says

Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

That's bullshit. The right has banned books, passed blue laws, attempted to ban pornography, attempted to ban flag burning, indoctrinated children by forcing them to say a pledge of allegiance and then including a religious indoctrination into that pledge, passed laws against the use of encryption, violated anti-wiretapping laws. I could go on and on.

You statement is contradicted by all of history.

Oh gee another thread about climate change. I actually believe in it and believe that it's happening. But I disagree with all the solutions that politicians have come up with so far. So where does that leave you? Just because people agree that climate change is real doesn't mean they will let you tax them and give all the money to the lawyers.
So fuck off and die in a greenhouse, asshole!

Dan8267 says

HydroCabron says

Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

That's bullshit. The right has banned books, passed blue laws, attempted to ban pornography, attempted to ban flag burning, indoctrinated children by forcing them to say a pledge of allegiance and then including a religious indoctrination into that pledge, passed laws against the use of encryption, violated anti-wiretapping laws. I could go on and on.

You statement is contradicted by all of history.

Tool, read the second paragraph of my post.

It's called "mocking right-wing asshats by mimicking their infantile assertions in an assumed voice."

You need to slow down on the 15,000-word rebuttals and assertions and actually read.

You have two ears and one mouth, fool. Listen twice as much as you talk.

HydroCabron says

Tool, read the second paragraph of my post.

Up yours. I did read your entire post. The second paragraph adds nothing to the first and does not contradict the empirical examples that disproves your assertion that Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

Being a dick won't change that you are obviously wrong.

Dan8267 says

HydroCabron says

Tool, read the second paragraph of my post.

Up yours. I did read your entire post. The second paragraph adds nothing to the first and does not contradict the empirical examples that disproves your assertion that Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

Being a dick won't change that you are obviously wrong.

Slow down, there, 'Tard. Tone down the insecure hysteria.

By now even you may have figured out that most of the members of this site are more intelligent than you are. Show some humility, lay off the keyboard and pay attention to what they're saying, instead of lecturing them all day.

It's called "personal growth." Other humans have things to teach you - quite a bit, in your particular case.

Dan8267 says

Now when I expose the lie for what it is, are you man enough to admit you were wrong, that you were duped, and to change your position based on the facts?

In the tradition of all liars, Spurwing is running away now that he's been caught and exposed.

Heraclitusstudent says

For those of us who believe climate change is real: why do we not do anything about it?

For one thing, yeah the impact *now* is virtually 0. Even if you could positively link climate change to some hurricanes, people would still live 99.99% of their lives exactly like they did before. Severe impact will not be there for years, probably 100 years.

Now if you consider what will happen in the next 100 years, I'm honestly not convinced climate change is really the dominant threat.

I would say overpopulation is the dominant threat. The perspective of having 13 billions people on the planet (including 5 in Africa) should give anyone pause. In this 100 years, if history is any guide, you will probably have at least 1 world war. Maybe a massive plagues. Some countries will run out of ground water. Most fish will run out. Lions and elephants will likely go extinct outside of zoos.

Climate change is like the cherry on that cake.

Also remember, If we were using o...

Well, 13 billion people on the planet will certainly speed up climate change tenfold as well.

Why people don't believe in climate science ?
Because its been taken over by Libtards, and become a pseudo-science.

Why do people believe in man-made global warming ?
Because they're idiots.

BlueSardine @ 4

Your second chart,do notice a problem with it?
Does anyone else?
This is your homework this weekend.

SimonRuszczak says

Why people don't believe in climate science ?

Because its been taken over by Libtards, and become a pseudo-science.

Why do people believe in man-made global warming ?

Because they're idiots.

Anyone who thinks that climate change caused by mass pollution is a cultural or politically motivate issue is a fucking retard who deserves no respect. Anyone who dismisses literally thousands of lines of independent evidence that all say the same thing confirmed by tens of thousands of scientists around the world is simply either a pathological liar or a moron of the highest degree. Either way such a person should not respected and should get no say in any policy regarding any domain.

The price of having your opinion on policy considered is adherence to reality.