If you deny man-made global warming...

[Wikkiwallana]

You don't see where I'm getting what statement?

So long as enough people continue to say (and believe) things such as what you have said (just think about it a little bit...) we have no hope. Which if I was a sociopath I could be really useful to handle. As is I'm really compassionate and I hate seeing people and animals suffer.

the rise of rome happened during a period of global warming. still with me? rome... was... GOOD. shit got done, science exploded..

during the period of global cooling.. known as the little ice age... THERE WAS MASS FAMINE. THAT WAS BAD.

comprende?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

[Trotskylvania]

You're totally right. Does anyone know how to become a sociopath? I'd like to find a way to take pleasure in mass starvation. It's a skill I think I'll need to learn.

..what?

Global cooling = famines
global warming = humans explosively develop

i dont see where you are getting that statement.

Too much warming is bad. Too much warming too fast is even worse. Like, Permian-Triassic extinction event bad.

[Trotskylvania]

How exactly would you corrupt every relevant scientist on Earth.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Do I have to highlight the problem for you?

These people work for Governments, which have proven themselves to be massively corrupt, economically ignorant and socially authoritarian. These Government are afraid to lose power, since the end of the Cold War. They need myths and other bullshit to keep their iron fist on societies.

And no, all scientists are not corrupt

Great, you're a conspiracy theorist.

If anything, governments are marginalizing debate on climate change, because it interferes with their ideological policy initiatives.

[Costa Fiero]

Too much warming is bad. Too much warming too fast is even worse. Like, Permian-Triassic extinction event bad.

Even the Middle Miocence was bad enough. Although that was cooling but still produced a mass extinction event.

[Luna Amore]

It bothers me when a scientific theory is thought to be exempt from criticism.

[The Black Forrest]

It bothers me when a scientific theory is thought to be exempt from criticism.

Where have you been. Criticism is a part of science.

Unless you are talking about using the Bible, then yes that is pretty much static noise.

[Wikkiwallana]

It bothers me when a scientific theory is thought to be exempt from criticism.

It's not exempt from criticism, it's exempt from criticism based on flawed or fabricated data, and from criticism based on the inability of those who haven't done significant study of the theory to understand it. Just like any other scientific theory. Would you listen to someone who said the theory of gravity is wrong because birds can fly or because the've heard from a friend of a friend about "these Indian mystics who can go into a trance and totally hover, it's true, I swear!"?

[Distruzio]

There's a question I have for people who believe that humans are not affecting Earth's climate. This has nothing to do with their arguments surrounding the reason why Earth's climate is changing. Scientists who believe in the existence of man-made global warming make up a clear cut majority. Is it even possible that an entire field is being paid off by an industry that has practically just left the womb? If this is not the case, then what is? Are they all stupid and gullible?

The majority of scientists believe the earth was the center of the universe. Should we admit they were right?

My point is that science ain't democracy. A majority opinion holds no weight of itself. Consensus means nothing in the light of scientific discourse.

[Luna Amore]

It bothers me when a scientific theory is thought to be exempt from criticism.

:blink:

Where have you been. Criticism is a part of science.

Unless you are talking about using the Bible, then yes that is pretty much static noise.

That's my point. Global Climate Change is at this point of 'only an idiot would suggest it's not true'. Just look at the vitriol in this thread.

[Revolutopia]

There's a question I have for people who believe that humans are not affecting Earth's climate. This has nothing to do with their arguments surrounding the reason why Earth's climate is changing. Scientists who believe in the existence of man-made global warming make up a clear cut majority. Is it even possible that an entire field is being paid off by an industry that has practically just left the womb? If this is not the case, then what is? Are they all stupid and gullible?

The majority of scientists believe the earth was the center of the universe. Should we admit they were right?

My point is that science ain't democracy. A majority opinion holds no weight of itself. Consensus means nothing in the light of scientific discourse.

It does tell you something about the science through, as it is unlikely in these times where science so much more rigorous and knowledgeable about how the world works that the vast majority of individuals are wrong.

[The Black Forrest]

Where have you been. Criticism is a part of science.

Unless you are talking about using the Bible, then yes that is pretty much static noise.

That's my point. Global Climate Change is at this point of 'only an idiot would suggest it's not true'. Just look at the vitriol in this thread.

Well? Problem is the so called "deniers" tend to be non-scientists......

[The Black Forrest]

There's a question I have for people who believe that humans are not affecting Earth's climate. This has nothing to do with their arguments surrounding the reason why Earth's climate is changing. Scientists who believe in the existence of man-made global warming make up a clear cut majority. Is it even possible that an entire field is being paid off by an industry that has practically just left the womb? If this is not the case, then what is? Are they all stupid and gullible?

The majority of scientists believe the earth was the center of the universe. Should we admit they were right?

My point is that science ain't democracy. A majority opinion holds no weight of itself. Consensus means nothing in the light of scientific discourse.

You\forget the part where Religion was also guiding that belief and people tended to get punished if they said otherwise.......

[Luna Amore]

It bothers me when a scientific theory is thought to be exempt from criticism.

It's not exempt from criticism, it's exempt from criticism based on flawed or fabricated data, and from criticism based on the inability of those who haven't done significant study of the theory to understand it. Just like any other scientific theory. Would you listen to someone who said the theory of gravity is wrong because birds can fly or because the've heard from a friend of a friend about "these Indian mystics who can go into a trance and totally hover, it's true, I swear!"?

And if you (not you personally) suggested that only an idiot would question gravity, then that'd be just as bad. Questioning is the name of the game.

[Kel-Morian Alliance]

Humans take a major role in destroying our own planet with our littering, deforestation, and so on. That is one thing which is certain. We do not have any scientific proofs whether global warming is actually man-made or simply natural.

[Luna Amore]

That's my point. Global Climate Change is at this point of 'only an idiot would suggest it's not true'. Just look at the vitriol in this thread.

Well? Problem is the so called "deniers" tend to be non-scientists......

Not my point. Dismissing a completely unsupported hypothesis. OK.
Insisting that any one who questions a theory (not downplaying the word, fully aware of the weight of evidence involved) as loonies. Not OK.

[The Murry]

Humans take a major role in destroying our own planet with our littering, deforestation, and so on. That is one thing which is certain. We do not have any scientific proofs whether global warming is actually man-made or simply natural.

Here, Here!

[Costa Fiero]

You\forget the part where Religion was also guiding that belief and people tended to get punished if they said otherwise.......

And here we have an argument where apparently someone who doesn't know as much on the subject as other people isn't allowed an opinion at all. If you ask me, some people's attitudes on here are almost representive of a cult-like devotion to this idea.

[Wikkiwallana]

It's not exempt from criticism, it's exempt from criticism based on flawed or fabricated data, and from criticism based on the inability of those who haven't done significant study of the theory to understand it. Just like any other scientific theory. Would you listen to someone who said the theory of gravity is wrong because birds can fly or because the've heard from a friend of a friend about "these Indian mystics who can go into a trance and totally hover, it's true, I swear!"?

And if you (not you personally) suggested that only an idiot would question gravity, then that'd be just as bad. Questioning is the name of the game.

But no one is claiming only an idiot would question global warming. The problem is, people aren't questioning it, they are making statements. Very, very stupid statements. "How can we be sure?" is a question, one that can be answered by the mountains of data that have been gathered in the last century. "You're wrong, because this handful of people with a small box of sketchy evidence says so!" is not a question, but it's what we've been hearing on an endless loop for the last 20 years. It's always the same handful of people with the same box of "evidence" too, while data supporting our current understanding and fleshing it out even more is coming in fast and fresh all the time. You'd get frustrated too.

[Wikkiwallana]

You\forget the part where Religion was also guiding that belief and people tended to get punished if they said otherwise.......

And here we have an argument where apparently someone who doesn't know as much on the subject as other people isn't allowed an opinion at all. If you ask me, some people's attitudes on here are almost representive of a cult-like devotion to this idea.

You are completely entitled to any opinion you want. You are not entitled to have anyone else give a damn about it.

[Luna Amore]

And if you (not you personally) suggested that only an idiot would question gravity, then that'd be just as bad. Questioning is the name of the game.

But no one is claiming only an idiot would question global warming. The problem is, people aren't questioning it, they are making statements. Very, very stupid statements. "How can we be sure?" is a question, one that can be answered by the mountains of data that have been gathered in the last century. "You're wrong, because this handful of people with a small box of sketchy evidence says so!" is not a question, but it's what we've been hearing on an endless loop for the last 20 years. It's always the same handful of people with the same box of "evidence" too, while data supporting our current understanding and fleshing it out even more is coming in fast and fresh all the time. You'd get frustrated too.

I disagree that no one is saying or at the very least heavily implying it.

As for 'How can we be sure?', that's not a dumb question. Downright reasonable and easily answered, no?

[Costa Fiero]

But no one is claiming only an idiot would question global warming. The problem is, people aren't questioning it, they are making statements. Very, very stupid statements. "How can we be sure?" is a question, one that can be answered by the mountains of data that have been gathered in the last century. "You're wrong, because this handful of people with a small box of sketchy evidence says so!" is not a question, but it's what we've been hearing on an endless loop for the last 20 years. It's always the same handful of people with the same box of "evidence" too, while data supporting our current understanding and fleshing it out even more is coming in fast and fresh all the time. You'd get frustrated too.

No, what fustrates me that I'm not allowed to say anything because I haven't jumped on the anthropogenic or whatever it is climate change bandwagon yet. The general idea permeating in this thread is that "we welcome criticism but those who post it have no right to do so because it is clearly hockum".

[Wikkiwallana]

But no one is claiming only an idiot would question global warming. The problem is, people aren't questioning it, they are making statements. Very, very stupid statements. "How can we be sure?" is a question, one that can be answered by the mountains of data that have been gathered in the last century. "You're wrong, because this handful of people with a small box of sketchy evidence says so!" is not a question, but it's what we've been hearing on an endless loop for the last 20 years. It's always the same handful of people with the same box of "evidence" too, while data supporting our current understanding and fleshing it out even more is coming in fast and fresh all the time. You'd get frustrated too.

I disagree that no one is saying or at the very least heavily implying it.

As for 'How can we be sure?', that's not a dumb question. Downright reasonable and easily answered, no?

Which is why I didn't call it a dumb question.

[Wikkiwallana]

But no one is claiming only an idiot would question global warming. The problem is, people aren't questioning it, they are making statements. Very, very stupid statements. "How can we be sure?" is a question, one that can be answered by the mountains of data that have been gathered in the last century. "You're wrong, because this handful of people with a small box of sketchy evidence says so!" is not a question, but it's what we've been hearing on an endless loop for the last 20 years. It's always the same handful of people with the same box of "evidence" too, while data supporting our current understanding and fleshing it out even more is coming in fast and fresh all the time. You'd get frustrated too.

No, what fustrates me that I'm not allowed to say anything because I haven't jumped on the anthropogenic or whatever it is climate change bandwagon yet. The general idea permeating in this thread is that "we welcome criticism but those who post it have no right to do so because it is clearly hockum".

We do welcome criticism, but this is a deeply technical subject, and only people with a lot of training are qualified to give criticism. Suppose you came across an airplane being built, and decided to tell the factory foreman it would never work because metal is heavy and won't stay in the air. He then showed you the pages and pages of math proving that not only will it stay in the air, it will get there under it's own power. You insist he must be wrong, because you know metal weighs "a lot" and aren't sure why you should trust his advanced mathematics since you can't understand any of the formulas.. Why the fuck should he continue to listen to you when he has better things to do with his time?

[Luna Amore]

@Wiki: Ah, my mistake. It followed 'very, very stupid statements', so I connected them.

[Costa Fiero]

You are completely entitled to any opinion you want. You are not entitled to have anyone else give a damn about it.

Free Soviets would disagree with you. Apparently, those not "educated" enough on a subject shouldn't be allowed an opinion as quoted here:

it doesn't even take denial. you either know shit about climate change yourself - in which case you are going to be onboard with the scientific consensus, because its really that obviously correct - or you don't know shit about climate change, and should either learn or just let the grownups talk.

if you don't know shit about structural engineering, you aren't allowed to have opinions about how strong the beams in this building need to be.

And this is all because I said I believed in natural climate change.