abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This is where I tl;dr'd. There are a few fringe deniers funded by the Koch brothers and big oil and the rest of the experts agree.
Mitch the Bitch McConnell Wants You To Burn More Coal
- Thread starter Rrog
- Start date
This is where I tl;dr'd. There are a few fringe deniers funded by the Koch brothers and big oil and the rest of the experts agree.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Al Gore called, he wants to take you for a ride in the limo, then out to dinner, lobster from Maine has been flown in. He's very concerned about your carbon foot print. Do you mean that kind of expert?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Which means you don't believe the scientific consensus, which means you don't trust science
Are you saying by the nature of government, it's corrupt?
And what of the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of people who will directly be affected by this? Your response here seems shallow and unthoughtful
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
Ive posted and believe in clean energy. I also live in a state that burns coal.
I have toured and been around several plants. A neighbor that lived next to my dad for 30 years was an engineer for a coal plant.
They are heavily regulated and take several safeguards for pollution.
Are they the best option? No. They are not the monsters they are made out to be.
I have toured and been around several plants. A neighbor that lived next to my dad for 30 years was an engineer for a coal plant.
They are heavily regulated and take several safeguards for pollution.
Are they the best option? No. They are not the monsters they are made out to be.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I don't think there is a consensus that there is a consensus. I don't doubt science performed without bias, I do doubt people who have a mercenary interest in validating a preconceived idea due to a pay check.
I say, I don't know myself about the cause, if any, because it's beyond me to prove or refute it either way.
The nature of government is to let no bad thing go to waste. They will subvert it given half a chance. As evidence I submit...everything they have already subverted and perverted.
My response isn't unthoughtful. I already moved to higher ground. Also, I remember when it was all the rage in the scientific world to say we weRe headed into an ice age, so I've taken things with a grain of salt. Besides weren't all the Polar Bears supposed to be dead by now?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Every member of every species will be affected.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No. I mean climate scientists involved in peer reviewed research regarding the climate.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Ab absurdo is a fallacy.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Oh, so no lobsters? Bummer, I was getting hungry.
Just so you know I'm not up for arguing hard with you about this. I'm not ready to debate whether it is happening or if it isn't, or did man cause it. I was more of a believer before, because it seemed plausible that mankind could fuck up a good thing. It seems just as plausible that man could inflate it all too and exploit it for personal gain. Bottom line ...I don't know.
It hasn't made me feel guilty about how I live though because as a general philosophy I tread lightly on earth anyhow. This message is sent via power generated from the sun earlier today. I sure hope the ocean doesn't rise 1500' and wash my solar array away.
You done with that ark yet?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Ab absurdo? I thought he was like the backup 5th Ninja Turtle?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So you think all the scientists who independently confirm climate change through their own research are simply saying that it exists to ensure a paycheck? What is your evidence for that?
The scientific method ensures this can't happen. What you propose would require literally millions of people to be independently in on a global conspiracy, and the overwhelming majority of them would not be getting a paycheck from anyone. Researchers all over the globe test and verify the results these climate scientists publish, all on their own and reach the exact same conclusions; the planet is unequivocally warming because human activity has been increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the course of more than a century
So if you admit it's beyond your own understanding, who do you suppose you should believe or trust about the issue? Scientists who are completely transparent about their research and funding, or energy corporations and the "scientists" they hire who cast doubt on peer reviewed research and have a vested interest in confusing the public about the existence and significance of anthropogenic climate change in order to secure profit margins for said companies?
The exact same tactic used during the tobacco trials to determine if tobacco caused cancer. Lawyers and some of these exact same "scientists" were hired to cast doubt and claim "there is no consensus" in order to secure the profit margins for said companies..
So that's a yes?
So, so stupid..
"All the rage"? When was this? That sounds like a Doer quote to me...
Also, the polar bear population has substantially decreased due to population loss, so wtf are you talking about exactly? When that proof is provided because I know you'll probably respond by denying that as well, will you admit that since the polar bear population is decreasing, it is cause for alarm because of the effects of anthropogenic climate change?
No.. no you won't... of course not..
King Arthur
Well-Known Member
We are ran by a bunch of actors doing their jobs, they know exactly what the fuck is going on but they are playing a part. I mean seriously at this point if they truly lack the intelligence to grasp science and the scientific method then it is astonishing that they are even made able to be in their positions.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Convincing..
1970s.
And the science to back it up?
And the fact that ACG research goes back to the 1950's that confirms warming?
And the fact that science isn't infallible or the implications of what that means?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Again, I'm not confirming or denying anything. You doubted my claim there was a "global cooling crisis" in the media years ago. I showed you there was.
I think I've seen more Polar bears too when I go seal fishing in my umiak, but you can never be sure those white fuckers all look alike.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So explain this.. The bears require ice to hunt, mate and survive, the ice is melting, decreasing their habitat, so the bears starve resulting in decreased numbers.. If the bears habitat is being affected by ACC, then why would their population increase?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So the media presented something that was incorrect?
You're kidding me...
