For all your debates on the topic.

Lets keep the Space is cool thread free from climate change talk.

Post it here instead.



Human induced climate change: fact or fiction?

Discuss………….

Edited by u4486662: 23/3/2014 10:57:59 AM

Edited by u4486662: 28/10/2014 11:45:13 AM

Neil de Grasse Tyson is an idiot

how the global warming movement began
an interesting presentation and history lesson of the past 50 years or so.

36 minutes, recommended viewing.

[youtube]7P5RW0Tmp-U[/youtube]

Fiction.

#thingsObamainvented

#Rbbinventions ?

Indirectly.
The RBB invented Obama, and then Obama invented climate change.

Climate change thread: fact or fiction?

I am posting in it so I'm going to go with fact. The climate change thread does exist

97 doctors say you have cancer, 3 say you don't. Act or don't act?

You can have your own opinions but you can't have you own facts.

what a ridiculous non sequitur

If you say so.

Ask yourself this simple question; Who has the most to gain from maintaining the status quo? Who?

Scientists (on their massive $60k per annum salaries working for the CSIRO or other government agencies) or oil, gas & mining giants whose net wealth is larger than most countries GDP's?

What is in it for thousands of professionals across dozens of fields to perpetuate this great "lie" you speak of?

What is in it for them? The laughable precept that scientists are in it for grant money is the biggest joke put forward by the deniers. I can't remember the last time I saw a scientist driving a Ferrari. The whole concept is patently ridiculous and absurd.

Apparently some huge, vast conspiracy exists across dozens of disciplines, fields of science, countries, independent bodies et al to enslave the Western World in some sort of Socialist Utopian fantasy.

What a laugh.

go back and read the space thread, then watch the video i posted. then get back to me.
i'm not going to repeat old ground.

I watched the video. Hilarious stuff. World government woooooo!! All due to a shafted scientist back in the day.

The question you need to answer, and I'm happy to wait, is who has the most to gain from maintaining the status quo?

This is silly.

Care to explain why?

I'm an engineer so I'd class myself as pretty cluey but if I went to a doctor and he said I may have cancer, and it was confirmed by 2 or 3 others, I definitely wouldn't shop around to find a doctor that told me that I'm OK and those doctors that told you that you have cancer are all part of giant conspiracy to enslave the worlds population by big pharma and you'd be best to do nothing.

Give me a break. As an intellectual exercise it'd be interesting to see how the CFC brigade would have acted these days had the ozone degradation be discovered now in the age of the internet. Fortunately back in the day scientists came to a consensus, recommended action and something was done.

Given the vast amount of outright lies and debunked arguments floating about by shrills in the pay of fossil fuel merchants its doubtful that that situation would have been repeated today.

"There's no clear consensus."
"Ozone is natural"
"it's good for the planet"
"it's all rubbish by scientists who want to live in Toorak or Double Bay and drive Ferraris and Lamborghinis around the place"
"blah blah"

Edited by munrubenmuz: 23/3/2014 01:45:31 PM

if thats all you got from it then i doubt you were paying attention
i explained it in the space thread, i've already told you

if your comprehension skills are better than your listening skills then you might pick up on afrodopeGT owning himself by posting a link to an oil&gas company promoting the climate change scare. (psst: he didnt know they were an oil&gas company as he was grasping for something to support his failing argument )

So again you refuse to answer the simple question above which speaks volumes for your position.

Because I don't have days to waste I won't go into detail regarding that video but I will point out 1 of a dozen factual or debunked points of that video. The bit where old mate talks about 9000 PHD's and 30 000 scientists that refute climate change?

Perhaps these 2 links may explain why this video has, like yourself, no credibility.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html

But then again, scientists are writing these articles and they're all in on the scam right? RIGHT!

It's funny how you blokes deny the science and yet use the science to help back your position.

Look, they say you shouldn't argue with a fool as others may not be able to tell the difference so I'll choof off now.

Maybe I'll post later if you deem yourself worthy enough to answer the question above but we'll see. (Personally I'm betting you don't have the self-examination skills to see that vested interests are far better off maintaining the status quo than doing anything about it.)

i read your post and i see a whole lot of personal attacks/insults and not a bit of reasoning
did you miss the entire point that science is not a vote? it seems you did

your links mean nothing, they're merely well funded propaganda sites specifically set up to promote the climate change scare with the usual suspects on board. there is no science in your position or argument.

these frauds posit themselves as victims when in fact they're raking in billions collectively from government funding and NGO investments.

Truth is not determined by plebiscite.

Both of you blokes are correct of course. As we all know there are those that doubt the efficacy of vaccinations and those that doubt (or outright deny) evolution.

As there is not 100% consensus on both subjects and since, as you both say, science is not a vote, I propose that evolution and vaccination (and add any theory you care to name, there are those that deny general relativity) are merely constructs of those in the pay of big umm (insert some rubbish about grants here) and therefore not to be believed.

I mean the evidence is clear. Only 99% of scientists agree that these are facts but unfortunately, by your logic, science is not a vote and "truth is not determined by plebiscite" so we'll just write those 2 subjects off as the playthings of overactive imaginations.

Do you think we should discount evolution or vaccinations because there are some lunatics on the edges that think these things are lies?

Clearly you blokes don't have a leg to stand on.

And I notice you ignored my question again.




Edited by munrubenmuz: 23/3/2014 01:58:06 PM

You see, you out yourself again. The links are not opinions they are an investigation and a statistical* breakdown of the "scientists" that signed the petition. Again, you can have your own opinions, you can't have your own facts.

(* Disclaimer: Mathematical statistical theory is a construct of big pharma, the CSIRO and the illuminati.)

The breakdown clearly shows that the 9000 figure and even more so the 30000 figure is a laughable joke.

Happy to argue facts. The facts are right there.





Edited by munrubenmuz: 23/3/2014 02:18:22 PM

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. One shouldn't say 99 % of scientists believe proposition x is valid, therefore we should think the same. You're better served by saying, the vast majority of evidence suggests that climate change is real....

A bit of Occam's razor is what's needed here.

and around and round we go :roll:

Even if climate change isn't real, there is no major negative to taking action as if it is

Exactly. And given fossil fuels are finite (or are we going to argue that too) then, whether its done now or later, something will eventually have to be done to wean ourselves off them.

I agree re. the finality of fossil fuels. But to suggest there is no cost to addressing climate change is insanity.

they're not taking any action at all
they're merely moving money around and moving pollution around

for example, modern pollution free coal power plants are closing down in the USA to be replaced by primitive non scrubbed dirty coal plants over the border in Mexico. this is the result of your climate scare fraud, you're actually creating more pollution.

Just answer the question, you are embarrassing yourself.

Who has the most to gain with maintaining the status quo?

Let's put some figures on the scales here to help you. $4.7 billion (according to your video so a fact) to the AGW "scam" in the USA annually vs a multi-trillion dollar industry receiving anywhere from $14 to $52 billion dollars a year in the US. http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Why won't you answer the question?

For your sake let's hope 99% of doctors don't diagnose you or someone you love with cancer.