30 of 33
30
Science, science, science.
Posted: 05 November 2017 08:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 436 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1601
Joined  2016-12-24
Write4U - 05 November 2017 03:27 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 05 November 2017 12:20 AM
DougC.V2 - 04 November 2017 11:41 PM

“Never argue with a fool,

Who’s arguing?  I’m dissecting.  cheese

I believe this may be the cause of Mike’s confusion

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 November 2017 02:59 PM

And Climate Change is causing the warming in Global Warming?{Nonsense! Global Warming is the driver of Climate Change, it does not work the other way around.  Man, you can’t even keep the most basic science straight but you feel you’re in a position to condemn serious experts.  rolleyes }

To a sloppy reader this may appear that you are arguing CC causes GW.  Mike doesn’t seem capable of reading more than the first sentence. But a question mark (I took the liberty of placing it in the quote) might have helped making it clear that the next sentence is your answer to the proposition.

Thank you, I was almost going to mention something about it but blew it off.

Still it’s true I’ve been complaining about the sloppy mixing up of that terminology by everyone for years.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 11:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 437 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24

Here’s the only thing anyone needs to post in reply to climate change deniers, what absolute fools they are.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

For years, a network of fake citizens’ groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon’s involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called “dark money,” or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.

“The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming,” Brulle said in a statement. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers.”

Point out that they are fools and that their idiocy does not deserve to be dignified with any response other than pointing out what idiots they are.

Then move on to the facts and leave them to their idiocy, after 40 years of this it’s obvious that they will never stop. Trying to convince them of anything is its own form of idiocy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 438 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24

Here’s a little analogy to what this situation is like and why it is so destructive.

Let’s say there’s this complete imbecile that you walk past every day who sits in public and eats his own snot. Your response is to sit down and try to educate him on how much better the dining is at all the high class restaurants in the area. First off if the imbecile is sitting out in public and eating his own snot he’s not likely to even have a clue to what you’re referring to. He’s got his disgusting snot to eat and he’s happy with it. He also doesn’t care if everyone sees him eating his snot.

You on the other hand have much higher standards of what is good, but you’ve just lowered the entire discussion to his level… in public.

That’s what climate change denial is in relation to the valid science on global warming, the differences are profound.

By sitting down in public with the imbecile eating his metaphorical snot you are in fact lowering the entire subject of human created climate change to the level the imbecile understands and is happy with.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 439 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24

So when you see any threads or posts here by clear deniers then just translate them to, “How I like to eat snot”, or “101 recipes for nose mucus”, then decide if you really want to jump into that discussion.

Leave the imbeciles to their disgusting habits, none of us are obligated to join in with them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 01:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 440 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1601
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC.V2 - 05 November 2017 12:58 PM

So when you see any threads or posts here by clear deniers then just translate them to, “How I like to eat snot”, or “101 recipes for nose mucus”, then decide if you really want to jump into that discussion.

Hey don’t get personal, Maddy loves licking out Mishka’s mouth, and christ Mishka is like 160 pounds of drool making machine.
I don’t get it, but hey.

Ignoring it is only going to allow it to continue thriving.  peace

I’m going to have to force myself to check out of this conversation for a couple days,
gotta try to devote all my free time on something else, my deadline is looming.
Dr. Trenbert is coming to town Thursday.

later,  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 02:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 441 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15740
Joined  2006-02-14
DougC.V2 - 05 November 2017 12:49 PM

Here’s a little analogy to what this situation is like and why it is so destructive.

Let’s say there’s this complete imbecile that you walk past every day who sits in public and eats his own snot. Your response is to sit down and try to educate him on how much better the dining is at all the high class restaurants in the area. First off if the imbecile is sitting out in public and eating his own snot he’s not likely to even have a clue to what you’re referring to. He’s got his disgusting snot to eat and he’s happy with it. He also doesn’t care if everyone sees him eating his snot.

You on the other hand have much higher standards of what is good, but you’ve just lowered the entire discussion to his level… in public.

That’s what climate change denial is in relation to the valid science on global warming, the differences are profound.

By sitting down in public with the imbecile eating his metaphorical snot you are in fact lowering the entire subject of human created climate change to the level the imbecile understands and is happy with.

This is a discussion forum for all topics, so one topic of discussion will be whether or not we should discuss matters with those who disagree with us. Fair enough, so long as it remains simply an open topic of discussion. HOWEVER: since this is a discussion forum for all topics, it is really not within the spirit of the rules or indeed the existence of a forum for open discussion, debate, and inquiry to harangue others not to discuss and debate matters of common interest with those who are on the other side of whatever issue is at hand. If discussion and debate are useless, what is the point of taking part in a forum which exists precisely for discussion and debate? If you do not wish to engage, you are free not to engage.

Further, since the principle of arguing against debate with others is, in spirit, disruptive to the good functioning of the the Forum and to CFI’s mission, it is against the rules and therefore discouraged.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 05:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 442 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24

That’s pretty ironic considering that the whole intent and result of what “people” like Mike Yohe here and climate change deniers everywhere is to disrupt any rational discussion on what is an existential subject. By saying you’re going to include him it effectively shuts out those who want to have a rational discussion based on the evidence, not constantly have to correct someone who has already been corrected literally hundreds of times with no change in their behavior.

Would you allow someone to do their small part to implement genocide here, there are some posters who openly advocate that with no censure.

If we stay the course that is entirely the result of an intentional denial of the very best evidence we have on this it will almost certainly take out not just our species but millions of others based on the work of professionals doing exhaustive research over not decades but centuries.

And because the people running a few companies don’t want this dealt with because it affects them personally everything we do will ultimately become moot because there will not only be no civilization for rational discussion to take place but quite likely no people left to do it.

This isn’t an academic issue and never has been, treating it as such is highly irrational.

If the policy of this forum is to support climate change denial by allowing people who are part of a intentional intellectual fraud dating back 40 years to freely post, then it is in fact a vehicle for climate change denial.

Do I really have to point out how killing off most of the existing biosphere is as immoral as it gets.

This ridiculous idea that all “ideas” are equal and should be treated as such is the exact blindspot that deniers intentionally target.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 05:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 443 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4167
Joined  2009-10-21

I don’t follow your logic Doug. No one is promoting Mike. This platform does not affect actual science.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 05:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 444 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24

This isn’t about honest discussion of facts and never has been, this about a few people who had the genuine facts 40 years ago, deciding to not just ignore them but to make it as difficult for everyone else to have access to them by flooding the public forum with as much disinformation as possible.

What does that even remotely have to do with science and rational thought and discussion?

By allowing this to continue here not only are the administrators agreeing that evidence isn’t important in discussion, but that life itself isn’t important.

Explain to me how that position has any basis at all in reason.

Then look at the asinine and insulting to the informed counter-factual garbage that is posted here as a matter of routine by one member..

There is nothing rational or even remotely respectful to the spirit of open and rational discourse in what has been going on here for years.

It’s been one person as part of an overall denial campaign turning their loudspeakers up to 11 and saying, “to hell with the rest of you.”

I’m just going to assume that this entire forum is a fraud and has been a recipient of some of the literally hundreds of millions of dollars spent to do exactly what is happening here.

denial not discussion of the facts…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 05:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 445 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24
Lausten - 05 November 2017 05:29 PM

I don’t follow your logic Doug. No one is promoting Mike. This platform does not affect actual science.

Climate change denial is not science, it is the denial of science. By allowing free access to this discussion to people not just here but everywhere else who’s only goal is to shut down rational discussion on this topic it is totally contrary to a facts based discussion on this.

Instead of an effective discussion on what is already one of the worst catastrophes in history in terms of lost lives and property which will certainly get much worse as it progresses unaddressed, we end up having defend science itself which is the central theme of this thread. It’s insane it’s even in this section.

Started by someone who’s only intent based on hundreds of posts in the same theme is to discredit not discuss evidence and theory entirely compatible with the scientific process going back centuries.

There’s no logic there because logic is anathema to denial of reality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 446 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4167
Joined  2009-10-21

this site is not the IPCC or a college campus. We are a couple steps above above a sports bar. I have told people with science questions to go to science sites. Then I give my opinion. Anyone with credentials would think I was barely more qualified than Mike.

You might as well tell two peolpe on the bus to stop talking.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 07:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 447 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24

Science doesn’t stop being science when you leave the campus and the IPCC is a political body not a scientific organization.

Should we start a crypto-zoology thread here and start discussing all our Bigfoot, Yeti and Nessie stories.

All this ads up, the reason deniers are everywhere is the intent is to stifle rational discussion about climate change everywhere they can.

It’s largely a continuation of the tobacco lobby disinformation campaign, maybe we can start a thread here about all the great health benefits of smoking. Climate change is far more deadly in the long term than tobacco ever was.

Where’s the slightest sense of responsibility here?

[ Edited: 05 November 2017 07:59 PM by DougC.V2 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 08:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 448 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24

What a metric to decide what should be allowed to be posted in a science sub-forum. How about when things stop being real they aren’t included.

And climate change denial is demonstrably unreal in scientific terms, it relies on no peer-reviewed science…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 04:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 449 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4167
Joined  2009-10-21

obviously we have a bigfoot thread, as well as other pseudo science. I don’t see CFI as a source for denier propaganda, Mike is just one of its many products. The goal of the political machine that churns out this garbage is to get people like Mike to do their work for them. It’s pretty hard to deal with people like him because they can’t tell the difference between politics and science. Shutting down one Mike is not going to shut down the source of the misinformation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 450 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 03 November 2017 07:12 AM

I might have missed a few details, but it’s hard to keep track of Mike. This page is a nice summary. CC raises specifics, Mike ignores every one of them.

Of course, I ignore them. I could insert a page about the best motorcycles to ride and that would be nice too. What the hell does that have to do with the Hockey Stick? The loss of time and money by consensual science? CC is treating you like a fool. Wake up old boy.

Profile
 
 
   
30 of 33
30