Climate change: Fact or Fiction?


Climate change: Fact or Fiction?

Author
Message
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
another example showing how you dimwits are being manipulated by marketeers...

read the link for a better layout and diagrams showing how you're being played with advertising tricks

Quote:
[size=8]What’s In A Name? Global Warming vs Climate Change[/size]
What’s In A Name? Global Warming vs Climate Change
What’s In A Name? Global Warming vs Climate Change Download the PDF

We found that the term "global warming" is associated with greater public understanding, emotional engagement, and support for personal and national action than the term "climate change."

For example, the term “global warming” is associated with:

Greater certainty that the phenomenon is happening, especially among men, Generation X (31-48), and liberals;
Greater understanding that human activities are the primary cause among Independents;
Greater understanding that there is a scientific consensus about the reality of the phenomenon among Independents and liberals;
More intense worry about the issue, especially among men, Generation Y (18-30), Generation X, Democrats, liberals and moderates;
A greater sense of personal threat, especially among women, the Greatest Generation (68+), African-Americans, Hispanics, Democrats, Independents, Republicans, liberals and moderates;
Higher issue priority ratings for action by the president and Congress, especially among women, Democrats, liberals and moderates;
Greater willingness to join a campaign to convince elected officials to take action, especially among men, Generation X, liberals and moderates.
Our findings strongly suggest that the terms global warming and climate change are used differently and mean different things in the minds of many Americans. The following graphic shows how the two terms elicit different meanings for Americans.

Further, Americans are four times more likely to say they hear the term global warming in public discourse than climate change. Likewise, Americans are twice as likely to say they personally use the term global warming than climate change in their own conversations.

The report includes an executive summary, a Google Trends analysis, an analysis of the top of mind associations generated by the two terms, and methodological details.
- See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/global-warming-vs-climate-change/#sthash.wODEYLqV.dpuf


Edited by ricecrackers: 9/6/2014 04:04:11 PM
Carlito
Carlito
Legend
Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K, Visits: 0
Lol look at ricecrackers, trying to look intellectual but we can all tell you're a 12 year old kid who thinks who thinks he knows everything about everything
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:
Lol look at ricecrackers, trying to look intellectual but we can all tell you're a 12 year old kid who thinks who thinks he knows everything about everything


thats some burn I see there spud
Carlito
Carlito
Legend
Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K, Visits: 0
Spud . :lol: do you want me to bring up the whole follow the buzzards shit again . You got know clue about anything but parrot on
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:
Spud . :lol: do you want me to bring up the whole follow the buzzards shit again . You got know clue about anything but parrot on


i have no recollection of what you're talking about
my only memory of engaging you is your apparent idiocy, other than that nothing memorable about you

tbitm
tbitm
Pro
Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K, Visits: 0
ricecrackers wrote:
another example showing how you dimwits are being manipulated by marketeers...

read the link for a better layout and diagrams showing how you're being played with advertising tricks

Quote:
[size=8]What’s In A Name? Global Warming vs Climate Change[/size]
What’s In A Name? Global Warming vs Climate Change
What’s In A Name? Global Warming vs Climate Change Download the PDF

We found that the term "global warming" is associated with greater public understanding, emotional engagement, and support for personal and national action than the term "climate change."

For example, the term “global warming” is associated with:

Greater certainty that the phenomenon is happening, especially among men, Generation X (31-48), and liberals;
Greater understanding that human activities are the primary cause among Independents;
Greater understanding that there is a scientific consensus about the reality of the phenomenon among Independents and liberals;
More intense worry about the issue, especially among men, Generation Y (18-30), Generation X, Democrats, liberals and moderates;
A greater sense of personal threat, especially among women, the Greatest Generation (68+), African-Americans, Hispanics, Democrats, Independents, Republicans, liberals and moderates;
Higher issue priority ratings for action by the president and Congress, especially among women, Democrats, liberals and moderates;
Greater willingness to join a campaign to convince elected officials to take action, especially among men, Generation X, liberals and moderates.
Our findings strongly suggest that the terms global warming and climate change are used differently and mean different things in the minds of many Americans. The following graphic shows how the two terms elicit different meanings for Americans.

Further, Americans are four times more likely to say they hear the term global warming in public discourse than climate change. Likewise, Americans are twice as likely to say they personally use the term global warming than climate change in their own conversations.

The report includes an executive summary, a Google Trends analysis, an analysis of the top of mind associations generated by the two terms, and methodological details.
- See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/global-warming-vs-climate-change/#sthash.wODEYLqV.dpuf


Edited by ricecrackers: 9/6/2014 04:04:11 PM
just because the average person hears and says global warming more than climate change doesn't mean it was a left conspiracy to trick people.

This exact study from Yale has been debunked if that's the conclusion you want to draw from it.

Quote:
Cumulatively, from 2009 through Tuesday, Republicans mentioned global warming 1,338 times and climate change 1,243 times. Democrats mentioned climate change 3,584 times and global warming just 865 times.

This seems to fit the opposite of what the pollsters suggest should be happening


http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-political-rhetoric-around-climate-change-er-global-warming/

And if we were to go just off last years mentions in congress, democrats use climate change about 10 times more than global warming, repubs about a 1-1 ratio, and talk about the topic less.

ricecrackers wrote:
but tbitm, the media still markets it's propaganda saying global warming to scare the masses, you indoctrinated pleb
wrong again, left leaning media like msnbc used climate change twice as much as global warming. Right leaning media like Fox News used global warming more than climate change. *same article as the reference btw*

ricecrackers wrote:
still it's the scientist who are all taking you for fools and scaring you hippie white progressives

Wrong again, it's amazing how wrong you are :lol:. Anyway, scientific papers are about 3 times more likely to mention climate change than global warming. And since global warming is a symptom of climate change, there's nothing wrong with mentioning it in a scientific paper.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

So please tell me how global warming is being marketed us and by who?

Edited by tbitm: 9/6/2014 05:38:19 PM
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
so my Yale study which talks about the demonstrated effectiveness of marketing terms and advice to the future...to your blog which has no relevance is evidence that it was debunked?

we know for a fact that "global warming" was changed to "climate change" because the actual global warming didnt happen.
climate change was a catch all for any climatic event being lumped into the alarmist scare.

the study simply shows how ineffective the term "climate change" is since that switch and why its failing to garner support.

this is why we're about to go back to "global warming" soon.... or "global climate warming" mark my words
please. you can do better than that. (or maybe you cannot)
tbitm
tbitm
Pro
Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K, Visits: 0
ricecrackers wrote:
so my Yale study which talks about the demonstrated effectiveness of marketing terms and advice to the future...to your blog which has no relevance is evidence that it was debunked?

we know for a fact that "global warming" was changed to "climate change" because the actual global warming didnt happen.
climate change was a catch all for any climatic event being lumped into the alarmist scare.

the study simply shows how ineffective the term "climate change" is since that switch and why its failing to garner support.

this is why we're about to go back to "global warming" soon.... or "global climate warming" mark my words
please. you can do better than that. (or maybe you cannot)
the study is valid as it shows the different connotations that global warming and climate change mean to the average American. From the stats they show you just have to come to the right conclusions. You didn't and my link shows that. Have you ever thought of using numbers to back up your claims? It will make your points more legitimate.

If people find global warming more serious than climate change they just don't know much about the topic, they aren't getting told this by marketers of a global warming agenda. That's what has been debunked from your conclusion from the Yale paper that the paper didn't even make, you made it.
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
tbitm wrote:
ricecrackers wrote:
so my Yale study which talks about the demonstrated effectiveness of marketing terms and advice to the future...to your blog which has no relevance is evidence that it was debunked?

we know for a fact that "global warming" was changed to "climate change" because the actual global warming didnt happen.
climate change was a catch all for any climatic event being lumped into the alarmist scare.

the study simply shows how ineffective the term "climate change" is since that switch and why its failing to garner support.

this is why we're about to go back to "global warming" soon.... or "global climate warming" mark my words
please. you can do better than that. (or maybe you cannot)
the study is valid as it shows the different connotations that global warming and climate change mean to the average American. From the stats they show you just have to come to the right conclusions. You didn't and my link shows that. Have you ever thought of using numbers to back up your claims? It will make your points more legitimate.

If people find global warming more serious than climate change they just don't know much about the topic, they aren't getting told this by marketers of a global warming agenda. That's what has been debunked from your conclusion from the Yale paper that the paper didn't even make, you made it.


climate change isnt working in the USA. its not scaring people.
the paper was completed in May 2014.

you history of previous usage has no relevance to its guidance because its only just been published.

your blog is arse backwards in what its trying to claim
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
ricecrackers wrote:
ricecrackers wrote:
paulbagzFC wrote:
ricecrackers wrote:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:
The Daily Caller is a politically conservative[1][2] news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative[3][4] political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney


Sounds bout right.

-PB


there's difference between the messenger and the source idiot


When it suits your agenda sure :lol:

-PB


hypocrisy^


Sheesh, failing in this thread too.

You're too good Ricey :lol:

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
always find the alarmist cult amusing to laugh at

tbitm
tbitm
Pro
Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K, Visits: 0
Quote:
another example showing how you dimwits are being manipulated by marketeers...

read the link for a better layout and diagrams showing how you're being played with advertising tricks

This was your contention and it's been proven wrong since all the influential climate change acceptors haven't been saying global warming more than climate change. That's what the 538 link showed

Can you just accept you were wrong or is that impossible because you're never wrong?

Since, you've changed your contention to what they are going to do because climate change doesn't scare enough people as global warming does (highly questionable since the only overwhelming example where this was true was when the pollster asked what people thought about "ice melt". Who would've though people think global waking when given the buzzword "ice melt" :lol:).

I don't think they are going to stop using climate change and revert back to saying global warming. All the evidence in the 538 blog shows the exact opposite is more likely.

Edited by tbitm: 9/6/2014 07:01:12 PM
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
tbitm wrote:
Quote:
another example showing how you dimwits are being manipulated by marketeers...

read the link for a better layout and diagrams showing how you're being played with advertising tricks

This was your contention and it's been proven wrong since all the influential climate change acceptors haven't been saying global warming more than climate change. That's what the 538 link showed

Can you just accept you were wrong or is that impossible because you're never wrong?

Since, you've changed your contention to what they are going to do because climate change doesn't scare enough people as global warming does (highly questionable since the only overwhelming example where this was true was when the pollster asked what people thought about "ice melt". Who would've though people think global waking when given the buzzword "ice melt" :lol:).

I don't think they are going to stop using climate change and revert back to saying global warming. All the evidence in the 538 blog shows the exact opposite is more likely.

Edited by tbitm: 9/6/2014 07:01:12 PM


my contention was the same all along
its you who attempted to appropriate your interpretation of it to me

furthermore your examples of politicians is a tiny sample of the total marketing campaign

you still fail to realise that people are actually devising ways to sell you a fraud via marketing tricks

you miss the point entirely
tbitm
tbitm
Pro
Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K, Visits: 0
Politicians, major tv news outlets and scientists. Not particularly a small marketing campaign and atleast I've shown numbers to back up my point.

Where are your numbers and where are these other global warming marketeers you were telling us about? I'd like to see them.
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
tbitm wrote:
Politicians, major tv news outlets and scientists. Not particularly a small marketing campaign and atleast I've shown numbers to back up my point.

Where are your numbers and where are these other global warming marketeers you were telling us about? I'd like to see them.


again, you've entirely missed my point (which is backed up by a yale study) ](*,)

easy question:

did we have a minister for climate change or a minister for global warming under the ALP?

Edited by ricecrackers: 9/6/2014 07:19:22 PM
tbitm
tbitm
Pro
Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)Pro (3.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K, Visits: 0
ricecrackers wrote:
tbitm wrote:
Politicians, major tv news outlets and scientists. Not particularly a small marketing campaign and atleast I've shown numbers to back up my point.

Where are your numbers and where are these other global warming marketeers you were telling us about? I'd like to see them.


again, you've entirely missed my point (which is backed up by a yale study) ](*,)

easy question:

did we have a minister for climate change or a minister for global warming under the ALP?

Edited by ricecrackers: 9/6/2014 07:19:22 PM
your point isn't backed up by a Yale study. You don't know how to read a study. I can't believe were having this debate again on how to read a study. #-o

Your question is also irrelevant since the study is American, polling American people.

And if I keep missing your point then you need to explain it more clearly then. When you say politicians are only a small part of the marketing campaign, it's only fair for me to ask where the majority of the marketing is and how that's tricking people into fearing global warming.

Edited by tbitm: 9/6/2014 07:33:13 PM
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
tbitm wrote:
ricecrackers wrote:
tbitm wrote:
Politicians, major tv news outlets and scientists. Not particularly a small marketing campaign and atleast I've shown numbers to back up my point.

Where are your numbers and where are these other global warming marketeers you were telling us about? I'd like to see them.


again, you've entirely missed my point (which is backed up by a yale study) ](*,)

easy question:

did we have a minister for climate change or a minister for global warming under the ALP?

Edited by ricecrackers: 9/6/2014 07:19:22 PM
your point isn't backed up by a Yale study. You don't know how to read a study. I can't believe were having this debate again on how to read a study. #-o

Your question is also irrelevant since the study is American, polling American people.

And if I keep missing your point then you need to explain it more clearly then. When you say politicians are only a small part of the marketing campaign, it's only fair for me to ask where the majority of the marketing is and how that's tricking people into fearing global warming.

Edited by tbitm: 9/6/2014 07:33:13 PM


you're obfuscating now, i find this frustrating about you

the point is that the yale study is measuring data such that marketing can be best used to sell you on [size=9]fear[/size].

then you tell me that the study was "debunked". debunked ffs of what?

then you went off on a tangent about the numbers of demos and republicans... and who said what, like that had any relevance to the point

whether there are some politicians still using global warming is irrelevant.

we do know however that global warming was rebranded to climate change. this happened a decade ago.
all the official NGOs, think tanks, institutes etc primarily refer to the scare as "climate change" regardless of what your blog post says.

now what i find amusing is that these fraudsters are between a rock and a hard place. they've determined in a paper published May 2014 this year that "Climate Change" isnt scary enough and "Global Warming" is more effective.

however the data doesnt show any global warming in the last 15 years. only increase in carbon dioxide.
so how can you sell global warming when there is no global warming? you say there'll be catastrophic climate change resultant from "carbon pollution"

except "climate change" doesnt scare people enough....so they're going to have to go back to talking more about global warming and all of us burning to a crisp.

i'm predicting "global climate warming"


Edited by ricecrackers: 9/6/2014 07:49:17 PM
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
RedKat wrote:
Id like to know how polling people on words and what they associate it with is proof that the science is wrong?


oh dear
not even worth the effort but quoted for reference
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
ricecrackers wrote:
RedKat wrote:
Id like to know how polling people on words and what they associate it with is proof that the science is wrong?


oh dear
not even worth the effort but quoted for reference


Stop skimping out and being lazy or you will keep losing :lol:

Checkmate.

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

Muz
Muz
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K, Visits: 0
ricecrackers wrote:


you're obfuscating now, i find this frustrating about you


Hey! That's my big word. Find your own.


Member since 2008.


ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
you copy and pasted an amateur blog :lol:
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
iflscience is a bit more than an 'amateur blog'.
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
iflscience is a bit more than an 'amateur blog'.


really? so they're getting paid for those articles?
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
iflscience began as a facebook page and has since blossomed into a high-traffic website and will soon be a serialised television show. It's got more credibility than you do.
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
iflscience began as a facebook page and has since blossomed into a high-traffic website and will soon be a serialised television show. It's got more credibility than you do.


stormfront has a lot of traffic too i hear
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
ricecrackers wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
iflscience began as a facebook page and has since blossomed into a high-traffic website and will soon be a serialised television show. It's got more credibility than you do.


stormfront has a lot of traffic too i hear

Stormfront is not testifying to scientific accuracy.

You can't claim that iflscience doesn't have enough credibility after posting a piece from The Daily Caller.
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
ricecrackers wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
iflscience began as a facebook page and has since blossomed into a high-traffic website and will soon be a serialised television show. It's got more credibility than you do.


stormfront has a lot of traffic too i hear

Stormfront is not testifying to scientific accuracy.

You can't claim that iflscience doesn't have enough credibility after posting a piece from The Daily Caller.


my link cited direct quotes from a polar bear specialist. someone actually credible in the field they were commenting on.

your science blog piece was merely opinion by someone who has no qualifications in climate science much less astrophysics and you base its credibility on page views.

you see your entire position on climate change is not based in science at all and this is consistent with your approach in general...ie science = whoever makes the most noise
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
RedKat wrote:
Im not claiming it as proof of an argument. Rather as a way of showing some of the stupidity on the matter with an interesting conclusion. Not like Im using it to prove a point which it doesnt make.


i think anyone that claims the sun isn't the largest influence on the earth's climate has rocks in their head
just my opinion though
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
ricecrackers wrote:
RedKat wrote:
Im not claiming it as proof of an argument. Rather as a way of showing some of the stupidity on the matter with an interesting conclusion. Not like Im using it to prove a point which it doesnt make.


i think anyone that claims the sun isn't the largest influence on the earth's climate has rocks in their head
just my opinion though

And obviously you know better than the various expert scientists that speak to the contrary.
ricecrackers
ricecrackers
Pro
Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)Pro (3.5K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
ricecrackers wrote:
RedKat wrote:
Im not claiming it as proof of an argument. Rather as a way of showing some of the stupidity on the matter with an interesting conclusion. Not like Im using it to prove a point which it doesnt make.


i think anyone that claims the sun isn't the largest influence on the earth's climate has rocks in their head
just my opinion though

And obviously you know better than the various expert scientists that speak to the contrary.


biology bloggers?
GO


Select a Forum....























Inside Sport


Search