when i look at all the ppl here who believe every word from the global warming, now climate change, alarmists without ever questioning the source i have great difficulty discerning any real difference between them & the religious nut cases.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
21 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Your denial of what is considered Scientific fact by nearly every scientist and country on the planet makes me feel the same way about you.
What will you tell us next, that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism?
Please give us your source that debunks climate change. I’m open to learning.
darthfaja
Level 7
Mar 23, 2019
21
@Marcel3405
?
I've talked to a couple of climatologists, whom I tend to trust. They're not "the government." They're people doing real work, real study, real research, in the field.
The first one I met at a post-conference party in about 2000. I jokingly led the conversation with, "Tell me the truth, are we fucked?" His unsmiling answer: "Yeah. We're fucked."
Even if I knew nothing about the subject, I don't see any downside to assuming it's real, and deadly dangerous to all life on Earth.
Your characterizing people who accept climate change as "alarmists" and "religious nut cases" makes me think you either have an unfriendly agenda or are a little off mentally.
Either way, this is a bit like engaging flat-Earthers -- not really worth the time spent.
HankFox
Level 4
Mar 24, 2019
8
'The first one I met at a post-conference party in about 2000. I jokingly led the conversation with, "Tell me the truth, are we fucked?" His unsmiling answer: "Yeah. We're fucked."'
so here it is 2019. are we still fucked or any more fucked? if you could talk to him 20 yrs from now & there were no more appreciable changes i suppose he'd still say the same thing.
reminds me of the UN report which came out in 1989 & predicted that some coastal cities would be underwater by 2019.
@OwlInASack ,
i was never seeking out any conspiracy theories re global warming. it was only after i came across several claims made by global warming scientists that didn't make any sense & in some cases were disproven by scientists that i started to become a little suspicious.
Maybe don't assume that most of the people concerned about climate change didn't do any research? Here's a NASA report I found pretty compelling. [climate.nasa.gov]
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
So I suggest you try a bit harder to see if you can find a difference between respected scientists and "the religious nut cases."
jerry99
Level 8
Mar 23, 2019
5
I know, it's only like 95% + climate scientist agree, and most of those who don't are funded by fossil fuel interests. We're such idiots.
Btw, I feel exately the same way about climate deniers, so we have something in common! Besties for life?
1of5
Level 8
Mar 23, 2019
6
not true. i have no vested interests whatsoever. but i've never trusted the consensus view. let's be honest the avg person just isn't that bright.
@callmedubious
So your entire basis of your opinion is because everyone else thinks it’s true?
So, you’re saying the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth?
@darthfaja ,
the exact opposite. you're with the comfortable majority. when most ppl believed the world was flat very few believed otherwise.
@callmedubious
I’m with Science
It’s only comfortable because it’s a fact
Please enlighten us with some factual evidence.
@callmedubious I joined this site find intellegent women date. Instead I encounter this Rachael Maddow fan club!
1of5:
@callmedubious I know! People that go to school and learn things are such dolts! How dare they agree on things they know about. Fucking morons, the lot of them.
So, what's your stance on vaccinations?
@JOHNGALT
Dude, the women on this site are intelligent, educated, free-thinking individuals. You better up your game if you want to get any action here.
If you do not believe in global warming you seriously have your head buried in the sand
Drsmash253
Level 7
Mar 24, 2019
3
If you can't differentiate between science and religion you have a problem.
Moravian
Level 8
Mar 24, 2019
5
Are there libertarian (NOT republican) anti-theists here?
@JOHNGALT
There are atheists of all political stripes. But climate change should not be a politicized.
@Flyingsaucesir Of course it is politicised. We are at the mercy of politicians who make the decisions
@Moravian
...of politicians who are bought off by the fossil fuel industry...
@Flyingsaucesir True
I’m not a scientist, but the idea of human made climate change seems plausible to me and I accept it. If that’s the same thing as being a religious nut case, then... OK.
indirect76
Level 7
Mar 23, 2019
4
why does it seem plausible?
do you know what the greenhouse affect means?
do you know that if a gas (CO2) prevents heat from leaving our atmosphere it also prevents it from entering to begin with?
@callmedubious I’m familiar with the prevents heat from leaving part, but not the prevents it from entering part.
@callmedubious
I’ll keep it simple for you
CO2 is transparent to the Sun’s energy
It is opaque to the Earth’s energy
Therefor it allows incoming energy from the sun to pass through it and warm the earth's surface, but that gets trapped partially.
It’s cslled SCIENCE.
@callmedubious UV light coming in is unaffected by CO2. Changes to Infrared which is trapped by the CO2, cannot get back out.
Do your homework...basic science.
[scied.ucar.edu]
@indirect76 ,
that's something that NASA scientists had a disagreement with the climatologists about.
they measure the temps on the troposphere with satellites & their measurements show that it's getting colder. if it gets colder there then eventually it'll get colder on the surface.
all this info is available on-line.
@dahermit ,
there are other measurements. more energy gets blocked than just UV that contributes to warming.
@callmedubious there is no such thing as the greenhouse affect. there is a greenhouse effect of course. meanwhile, rays from the sun, incoming radiation, are about a tenth of the length of the earth's outgoing rays. incoming radiation passes through the co2. outgoing doesn't. so your assertion that co2 prevents hear from entering to begin with is false. this, @indirect76 , is why you haven't heard it. your education is not at fault. the thing with which you are not familiar is, in fact, fiction.
g
@callmedubious OK, so I guess climate change isn’t happening. Thanks for filling me in.
@callmedubious NO, that part is wrong. I am not qualified argue with scientists on either side of this isuue, We do knoe human nature and "never waste a good crisis: mentality. I remain a skeotic but openminded. Atheists are said be 84% liberals, and only about 4% libertarian. I did not join argue politics with syuffy ol white men, I want find a date!
My grandmother's daffodils now bloom a Full 3 weeks earlier than they ever did, as do most flowering trees & bushes...ask any gardeners! I use my Eyes to tell me things are definitely warmer,you could too....but noooooooo
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Mar 24, 2019
3
every year hotter globally than the last for the past two decades... all the proof I need.
Kafirah
Level 8
Mar 24, 2019
3
not true. and even if it was. do you have any idea have insignificant a measurement 2 decades is.
"each consecutive year hotter than the one that preceded it for the last two decades, this year included, and that has never happened in recorded human history... and no signs of this established trend ceasing... I'll change my mind when it does... IF it does... I suggest buying sunscreen in bulk, just in case.
factually incorrect
@callmedubious
There is much to be said for healthy skepticism, but you are getting your information from the wrong sources.
Well.... when it comes to climate change, if given the choice between trusting an overwhelming percentage of climatologists who have done the actual research or trusting a few politicians and corporations who might lose a few bucks if they actually have to do the right thing, I’ll go with what the climatologists have to say on the subject all day and twice on Sunday’s.
webbew1
Level 7
Mar 24, 2019
3
science needs be isolated from political influence. If global warming were as urgent an issue as some people portray it be then forcing people pass pieces of paper with pictures of dead people on them may do way too little, and too slowly. Science should not be motivated by political agenda alone. I want to run into true libertarians
@JOHNGALT
Science should stand apart from politic and simply supply us with facts. This is what it has been doing. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry has been prosecuting a disinformation campaign in order to keep their profits rolling in. They know very well what the stakes are but they are perfectly willing to wreck the Earth for their short-term gains. It is truly monstrous what industry is doing. It's very much like what the tobacco companies did in denying the link between smoking and cancer, but on a much, much bigger scale. This time we are sending millions of species, including our own, to oblivion.
One cannot claim to be a libertarian and be just fine with private interest groups dictating policy in lieu of the will of the people any more than they can be a libertarian and be just fine with politicians dictating policy in lieu of the will of the people. A lot of people claim that they are Libertarians, but what they really are is plutocrats.
The scientific community has long since reached consensus: climate change is real, it's happening now, it's accelerating, and it is caused by human activity (burning fossil fuels primarily, and deforestation secondarily). It will be much worse much sooner than most people think, unless we radically change how we generate electricity and power our transportation systems. We have about ten years before we lock in very bad effects. We are staring down the barrel of mass extinction.
Flyingsaucesir
Level 8
Mar 24, 2019
2
I find it bizarre that people have no problems with the science of atmospheric lead pollution, or the interaction between CFC's and the ozone layer, but get out the foil hat when it comes to global warming.
MrBeelzeebubbles
Level 7
Mar 24, 2019
2
According to scientists not owned by corporations and government, and the fact that I have dug up fossils of tropical plants far north of the equator, climate change is a natural cycle of the earth. We are simply making it happen much faster and more severe than nature would have done. We are actually at the end of a short ice age, so it unfortunately will warm up. Does this mean we don't need to worry about our actions? Far from it. Every living thing can adapt only so fast. Many humans may be able to take refuge in air conditioning, but those that are forced to deal with nature and what we have been doing must drastically change, or perish.
Holysocks
Level 8
Mar 24, 2019
2
Some of us HAVE gone over the data, questioning results, etc. and understand what is happening: and it's NOT alarmist. Its pretty real.
Agamic
Level 6
Mar 24, 2019
2
and you justified jumping on the band wagon after reading some articles that said what you wanted hear from Mother Jones or Atlantic right?
Must one be a libtard be a skeptic> Must we replace religion of superstition with a religion worshipping government?
I don't believe every word of anything I haven't looked at myself. However, I believe there is some truth to global climate change based on very basic chemistry.
Every place I have lived in have factories and cars constantly spewing out chemicals in the atmosphere.
As far as I understand it; our climate is an expression of the components in aforementioned atmosphere.
So, as in any chemical solution, past a certain point of altering the composition the results/behavior of said solution will be proportionally altered.
I don't know what will happen to the climate. But I know for certain 1) my chemistry teacher would smack me on the head for saying chemical compositions are irrelevant. 2) A few degrees of change could be disastrous for us.
MLinoge
Level 7
Mar 24, 2019
1
I may not be a scientist, but I do keep up with the current theories. By that, I mean when something is "discovered" I do my own research. Occasionally I even read peer reviewed journals and abstracts.
I may believe in climate change, however I don't care for kool aide. I much rather make up my own mind.
kiramea
Level 7
Mar 24, 2019
2
This is so pointless. People won't change their minds on something like this because of an Internet discussion board, especially when the exchange is chock full of insults and condescension.
Piratefish
Level 7
Mar 24, 2019
1
@OwlInASack I have no dog in this fight. I don't know anything about the additional assertions you just made. But if true, why even respond to him? Trolls feed on reactions. Ignore them, and they soon lose interest.
@OwlInASack While I agree that science is a very powerful tool, and agree that climate change is real, that vaccinations are safe and work, and that the Earth is an oblate spheroid - not flat, I don't see the point in arguing with someone if I think he is a troll, or he already has his mind made up.
But I will talk about the very valid premise that some are treating science, and scientists, as infallible.
That is just as dangerous as a religion or clergy that can never be questioned. I think many people quickly accept whatever they hear from the media without ever going much further. All that has to be said is "scientists all agree", or "a leading scientists said". When one considers that the media almost never report straight facts, that there is always a spin or agenda, it is fair to stop and think. If you sat down the average person and asked them to explain their understanding of climate change (or any other scientific topic), about 90% of them would only be able to repeat sound bites, or perhaps a tidbit or two from a documentary they saw, or an article they read. Most would not be able to have even a fundamental discussion that would demonstrate a personal scientific understanding of the topic. Most likely, many would to fall back on popular phrases like "I think I'm going to believe what a consensus of scientists say", without really demonstrating an understanding of the science for themselves. How that is not unlike religion is what the OP seems to be pointing out, and is a legitimate point.
no doubt the converted will totally disregard this.
Drop In Sunspot Activity A Warning Of Global Cooling
Published on January 4, 2017
callmedubious
Level 8
Mar 24, 2019
1
Yep, callmedubious: science denier and possible troll. Principia Scientific (whatever the hell that's supposed mean)- pseudoscience...
AT least we are talking about peer-reviewed real science, the type that easily discredits religion.
The sun's energy output varies on an eleven year cycle, and the anthropomorphic climate change signal is so strong already that the sun's variation is merely background noise. The Earth experienced its hottest years on record while the sun was in its cool phase.
Shall we disbelieve EVERYTHING? Should we only believe things in subjects about which we, personally, are experts & disbelieve everything else? That, of course, is belief based on what? Superstition? Fear? A hunch? Wants?
It is only reasonable to understand that none of us can be experts in absolutely everything. It's important that we learn to analyze evidence which is readily available and testimony from people who are experts even when we, ourselves, are not experts. In the case of climate change, the evidence, studies, and experts give us a clear answer that it is, in fact, real. The two kinds of people who argue against the validity of climate change are:
(A) Those who have a vested interest in the status quo and so attempt to present the argument against as though it had as much validity as a argument in favor.
&
those who are misled through fear-mongering and slander by the people in group (A). They are effectively intellectual victims.
The overwhelming consensus stands one way because the evidence and the studies overwhelmingly support that view.
GeorgeN
Level 3
Mar 24, 2019
0
I tried to say A & B but it automatically replaced it with emojis. Now I'm stuck with a face instead of "A" & a beer mug instead of "B".
lol
Take climate change out of this for a moment. He used a poor example for what I think was an interesting point. I am interested in exploring his assertion that for some, science has reached the status of religious-like infallibility, and scientists are treated as prophets. An interesting premise, too, when one looks at the history (even recent history) of how many times scientists have gotten it wrong, despite the existence of significant supporting evidence.
Or let's just have another pointless and counterproductive argument on a topic about which everyone has already made up his or her mind. Maybe we can even alienate complete strangers in the process. But I would rather focus on the interesting, and so far on this thread, unexplored idea that, for some, science has been given a religion-like status, despite its history of fallibility.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.