Pseudo-Scientific Climate Claims Debunked...?
Peanut gallery mode has been enabled on this thread.

Started by GailyBee

This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules

14 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
  2,727 22 Sep 2014, 9:05 pm

GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3,734
Location: Washington State
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 2,727.25

Log in or register to remove this ad..
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight- ... cientists/

"Most people who deny that human activity is warming the planet just dismiss a massive body of scientific evidence as a big hoax.
But there’s a more sophisticated set of climate “skeptics” who make arguments that, at least to the lay ear, sound like they’re grounded in scientific evidence. And because most of us lack the background to evaluate their claims, they can muddy the waters around an issue that’s been settled in the scientific community.
So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading..."


Bill Moyers is a fairly well-respected guy--read what this article says.
-9
Log in or register to remove this ad..

User avatar
Posted by onlyaladd
  6,257 22 Sep 2014, 9:55 pm

onlyaladd User avatar
      
      

Posts: 21,074
Anarchist Anarchist political affiliation
Politics: Anarchist
Gender: Male
Money: 6,257.45




Excellent info. Coffee soon?
1
"Europe’s a big place," he said. "I’m not going to take cards off the the table. We have nuclear capability.'
Trump discussing nuking Europe.

User avatar
Posted by Lostphoenix
  3,536 22 Sep 2014, 9:57 pm

Lostphoenix User avatar
      
      

Posts: 5,702
Location: Iowa
Revolutionary Revolutionary political affiliation
Politics: Revolutionary
Gender: Male
Money: 3,536.24



GailyBee » 22 Sep 2014 9:05 pm wrote:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

"Most people who deny that human activity is warming the planet just dismiss a massive body of scientific evidence as a big hoax.
But there’s a more sophisticated set of climate “skeptics” who make arguments that, at least to the lay ear, sound like they’re grounded in scientific evidence. And because most of us lack the background to evaluate their claims, they can muddy the waters around an issue that’s been settled in the scientific community.
So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading..."

Bill Moyers is a fairly well-respected guy--read what this article says.


great article however I am still convinced that its too late to do anything about it.
try to tell the general public that their 4 bedroom 2 and a half bathroom suburban lifestyle is killing the planet and you have the current clusterfuk that is the deny movement.

its not that fixing all this is impossible, it just require's a political will that does not exist.... at least not yet.
by then it will REALLY be too late.
0
Image

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
  2,727 22 Sep 2014, 11:06 pm

GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3,734
Location: Washington State
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 2,727.25

onlyaladd » 22 Sep 2014 9:55 pm wrote:
Excellent info. Coffee soon?


I thought this was a terrific explanation/rebuttal to the nay-sayers.

Yes, coffee! Are you North or South of Seattle?
0

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
  48,014 22 Sep 2014, 11:08 pm

golfboy Liberal Anti-Matter
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 51,294
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 48,014.34



Oh look, a liberal is afraid of debating the facts.
The IPCC is currently predicting a cooling trend for the next half century...

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the
Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
Last edited by golfboy on 22 Sep 2014, 11:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0
ES » 07 Oct 2014 11:23 am wrote:
I've been doing face plants before your lies ever darkened any political forum.

Cannonpointer » 15 Oct 2014 10:46 am wrote:
Facts suck when you're a progressive.

Technocrat » 04 Sep 2014 12:15 pm wrote:
British invented English, you know.
:die:

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
  2,727 22 Sep 2014, 11:08 pm

GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3,734
Location: Washington State
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 2,727.25

Lostphoenix » 22 Sep 2014 9:57 pm wrote:
GailyBee » 22 Sep 2014 9:05 pm wrote:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

"Most people who deny that human activity is warming the planet just dismiss a massive body of scientific evidence as a big hoax.
But there’s a more sophisticated set of climate “skeptics” who make arguments that, at least to the lay ear, sound like they’re grounded in scientific evidence. And because most of us lack the background to evaluate their claims, they can muddy the waters around an issue that’s been settled in the scientific community.
So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading..."

Bill Moyers is a fairly well-respected guy--read what this article says.


great article however I am still convinced that its too late to do anything about it.
try to tell the general public that their 4 bedroom 2 and a half bathroom suburban lifestyle is killing the planet and you have the current clusterfuk that is the deny movement.

its not that fixing all this is impossible, it just require's a political will that does not exist.... at least not yet.
by then it will REALLY be too late.


I don't think you're alone in the 'it might be too late' line. I thoroughly appreciated learning about the agenda of some of the most vociferous anti-global warming troglodytes.

Seriously think about making it for coffee. :)
0

User avatar
Posted by Vegas
  3,455 22 Sep 2014, 11:11 pm

Vegas User avatar
Over-bathroom Under-secretary of Awesomeness

Posts: 11,459
Capitalist Capitalist political affiliation
Politics: Capitalist
Money: 3,454.50

The problem I have with this whole man-made climate change is that it gives ambivalent conclusions to what degree man is contributing. Of course we contribute, it's impossible for mankind to not pollute. The cavemen burned wood, they contributed. There is no way whatsoever in any circumstance that mankind does not contribute. The question is to what degree? How much? Iv'e seen so many inconsistencies in their articles that it cannot be trusted. Ive seen articles that said man has contributed more than 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Ive seen some that said up to 85%. Some said 25%...well make up your mind.
0
Image

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
  2,727 22 Sep 2014, 11:15 pm

GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3,734
Location: Washington State
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 2,727.25

Vegas » 22 Sep 2014 11:11 pm wrote:
The problem I have with this whole man-made climate change is that it gives ambivalent conclusions to what degree man is contributing. Of course we contribute, it's impossible for mankind to not pollute. The cavemen burned wood, they contributed. There is no way whatsoever in any circumstance that mankind does not contribute. The question is to what degree? How much? Iv'e seen so many inconsistencies in their articles that it cannot be trusted. Ive seen articles that said man has contributed more than 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Ive seen some that said up to 85%. Some said 25%...well make up your mind.


You ask some good questions. Inconsistencies or not, man is continuing to contribute to the gradual warming. As Phoenix said, it might be too late to do anything about it.

But we can at the very least check our sources so we know what to expect.
0

User avatar
Posted by Vegas
  3,455 22 Sep 2014, 11:24 pm

Vegas User avatar
Over-bathroom Under-secretary of Awesomeness

Posts: 11,459
Capitalist Capitalist political affiliation
Politics: Capitalist
Money: 3,454.50

GailyBee » 22 Sep 2014 11:15 pm wrote:

You ask some good questions. Inconsistencies or not, man is continuing to contribute to the gradual warming. As Phoenix said, it might be too late to do anything about it.

But we can at the very least check our sources so we know what to expect.

Yes, I know. we are always contributing. But to what degree. This is why some people think it is a hoax. Its a win-win arguement on your side, not because it is credible but because it traps the opponent into a dishonest premise. We are always polluting, so you use that in saying we are contributing to the pollution, then turn around and say that the opponent is denying facts that we pollute. Yet, there is no consistency among these 99% of scientists to what degree we pollute. It's a catch 22 for your opponent. Very dishonest.
0
Image

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
  2,727 23 Sep 2014, 8:12 am

GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3,734
Location: Washington State
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 2,727.25

Vegas » 22 Sep 2014 11:24 pm wrote:
GailyBee » 22 Sep 2014 11:15 pm wrote:

You ask some good questions. Inconsistencies or not, man is continuing to contribute to the gradual warming. As Phoenix said, it might be too late to do anything about it.

But we can at the very least check our sources so we know what to expect.

Yes, I know. we are always contributing. But to what degree. This is why some people think it is a hoax. Its a win-win arguement on your side, not because it is credible but because it traps the opponent into a dishonest premise. We are always polluting, so you use that in saying we are contributing to the pollution, then turn around and say that the opponent is denying facts that we pollute. Yet, there is no consistency among these 99% of scientists to what degree we pollute. It's a catch 22 for your opponent. Very dishonest.


I expect you to view it from that perspective.

As for me, I'm not looking to 'win' anything. I want to know what is going on, and I want to know what to expect and what I can be doing about it.

This isn't an 'argument' for me--it is a situation that can only become more dire the longer we dispute the facts.

Is the degree to which we pollute honestly your only concern? This isn't about 'gotcha'.
0

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
  48,014 23 Sep 2014, 8:32 am

golfboy Liberal Anti-Matter
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 51,294
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 48,014.34



Poor GayBitch, keeps deleting my posts... but can't stop me from just reposting it.
The best part is that she claims she has me on "ignore" but she's merely proving she's a liar.



GailyBee » 22 Sep 2014 9:05 pm wrote:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

"Most people who deny that human activity is warming the planet just dismiss a massive body of scientific evidence as a big hoax.
But there’s a more sophisticated set of climate “skeptics” who make arguments that, at least to the lay ear, sound like they’re grounded in scientific evidence. And because most of us lack the background to evaluate their claims, they can muddy the waters around an issue that’s been settled in the scientific community.
So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading..."

Bill Moyers is a fairly well-respected guy--read what this article says.
More "most people believe" bullshit. Are you all sheep, going along with the crowd because that's what you all believe?
And when you go into a discussion with a preconceived idea of what you want to hear, are you surprised you hear it?
"...to help us understand what makes these claims os misleading..." Really?
:rofl:
Did you see the article that countries are demanding 1500 changes to the new IPCC report because it didn't adequately address "the pause" that liberals claim isn't happening? Changes? How do you "change" a scientific document?
Either you have the data, or you don't.
0
ES » 07 Oct 2014 11:23 am wrote:
I've been doing face plants before your lies ever darkened any political forum.

Cannonpointer » 15 Oct 2014 10:46 am wrote:
Facts suck when you're a progressive.

Technocrat » 04 Sep 2014 12:15 pm wrote:
British invented English, you know.
:die:

jayjay's Photo
Posted by jayjay
  1,426 23 Sep 2014, 8:47 am

jayjay    
   

Posts: 987
Socialist Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Socialist
Money: 1,426.05


GailyBee » 23 Sep 2014 8:12 am wrote:

I expect you to view it from that perspective.

As for me, I'm not looking to 'win' anything. I want to know what is going on, and I want to know what to expect and what I can be doing about it.

This isn't an 'argument' for me--it is a situation that can only become more dire the longer we dispute the facts.

Is the degree to which we pollute honestly your only concern? This isn't about 'gotcha'.


It's a shame you couldn't see some of our friendly forum conservatives before the advent of the Internet, GailyBee. Some of them were quarreling with scientists about the lack of evidence for cigarettes causing cancer. I heard a rumor that one of our forum cons was even a low-level spokesperson for a tobacco company, and that he would usually stop by playgrounds to give packs of smokes to schoolchildren as he walked home from work.

I'm sure they'll come around on climate change as well. It's more complicated, though, so it may take a little more time.
2

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
  48,014 23 Sep 2014, 8:55 am

golfboy Liberal Anti-Matter
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 51,294
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 48,014.34



GailyBee » 23 Sep 2014 8:12 am wrote:
Vegas » 22 Sep 2014 11:24 pm wrote:
Yes, I know. we are always contributing. But to what degree. This is why some people think it is a hoax. Its a win-win arguement on your side, not because it is credible but because it traps the opponent into a dishonest premise. We are always polluting, so you use that in saying we are contributing to the pollution, then turn around and say that the opponent is denying facts that we pollute. Yet, there is no consistency among these 99% of scientists to what degree we pollute. It's a catch 22 for your opponent. Very dishonest.


I expect you to view it from that perspective.

As for me, I'm not looking to 'win' anything. I want to know what is going on, and I want to know what to expect and what I can be doing about it.

This isn't an 'argument' for me--it is a situation that can only become more dire the longer we dispute the facts.

Is the degree to which we pollute honestly your only concern? This isn't about 'gotcha'.

Please. Of COURSE it's about "gotcha", and getting more. More political power, more revenue, more redistribution.
You proved it was "gotcha" when you deleted my post showing the IPCC report that predicts global COOLING for the next 50 years.

You aren't interested in the truth, you're only interested in implementing your agenda.
0
ES » 07 Oct 2014 11:23 am wrote:
I've been doing face plants before your lies ever darkened any political forum.

Cannonpointer » 15 Oct 2014 10:46 am wrote:
Facts suck when you're a progressive.

Technocrat » 04 Sep 2014 12:15 pm wrote:
British invented English, you know.
:die:

jayjay's Photo
Posted by jayjay
  1,426 23 Sep 2014, 9:07 am

jayjay    
   

Posts: 987
Socialist Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Socialist
Money: 1,426.05

onlyaladd » 22 Sep 2014 9:55 pm wrote:
Excellent info. Coffee soon?


Better not--we've got work to do. Let the lazy cyanobacteria have their coffee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/scien ... ket-region
0

User avatar
Posted by onlyaladd
  6,257 23 Sep 2014, 9:08 am

onlyaladd User avatar
      
      

Posts: 21,074
Anarchist Anarchist political affiliation
Politics: Anarchist
Gender: Male
Money: 6,257.45



GailyBee » 22 Sep 2014 11:06 pm wrote:

I thought this was a terrific explanation/rebuttal to the nay-sayers.

Yes, coffee! Are you North or South of Seattle?

Tacoma
0
"Europe’s a big place," he said. "I’m not going to take cards off the the table. We have nuclear capability.'
Trump discussing nuking Europe.



Return to No Holds Barred Political Forum

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests

Who has visited this topic






cron