Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 106

Thread: How the climate change denial machine works and how it is funded

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    That "the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

    https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
    https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
    Science isn't a casino. It does not use consensus. It does not use supporting evidence.

    Please define 'climate change'.
    Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating either the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Deniers have lots of money and use the same techniques that the Cigarette manufacturers used to keep their poison products on the market as long as they could. People died, but money was made, so that is OK to them. They buy phony research and dress it up as respected. They have great sounding names for the dishonest labs. The results are predetermined.
    They pay lots of people to watch the internet and defend them from any attacks using the canned messages they have developed. We used to call it propaganda.
    This tired old argument again?

    Sorry dude, you're going to have to DEFINE 'climate change'. You're going to have to describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can make up any conspiracy theories you want. It doesn't do a thing to make these laws of physics go away.

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,958
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,036 Times in 13,846 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    What has the Flat Earth believers got to do with 'climate change'? Non-sequitur fallacy.
    This one is always a treat, when stuck, he employs the semantics like it is going to convince someone that he knows what he is talking about, "non-sequitur fallacy," beautiful, must have been stuck in a college Logic class too long

    Flat Earthers' beliefs deny climate change, the second part of the thought follows the first accordingly, even your attempts at sarcasm are entertaining

    And I notice you never address the view that it is all an orchestrated attempt to create a false paradigm, why would anyone go with any theory or concept you come up with when noted sources as NASA which I used above contradict everything you are presenting?

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,958
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,036 Times in 13,846 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Science isn't a casino. It does not use consensus. It does not use supporting evidence.

    Please define 'climate change'.
    Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating either the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
    But common sense does, you keep regurgitating an aborted weird version of solipsism to deflect off of the obvious

    And above I provided NASA's definition of climate change, I'll got with that one, they put a man on the moon, that is enough proof to me they kinda know what they are doing

  5. The Following User Groans At archives For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (10-24-2019)

  6. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    This one is always a treat, when stuck, he employs the semantics like it is going to convince someone that he knows what he is talking about, "non-sequitur fallacy," beautiful, must have been stuck in a college Logic class too long

    Flat Earthers' beliefs deny climate change,
    Are you sure? I would imagine most of them probably believe in the Church of Global Warming. Some of them probably deny it. You are making a non-sequitur fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    the second part of the thought follows the first accordingly, even your attempts at sarcasm are entertaining
    What sarcasm?? WTF are you talking about now???
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    And I notice you never address the view that it is all an orchestrated attempt to create a false paradigm,
    The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics is not a false paradigm. Neither is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They are theories of science that YOU choose to deny.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    why would anyone go with any theory or concept you come up with
    Because they are theories of science. They have not changed. They have not been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    when noted sources as NASA which I used above contradict everything you are presenting?
    NASA is not science. It is a government agency. Nothing they say changes any of these three laws of physics.

    Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating any of these three laws of physics. You can't run to NASA. You can't run to name calling. You can't run to manufactured numbers. You can't run to any data at all.

    Let's see you do it.

  7. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    And above I provided NASA's definition of climate change,
    NASA never defined 'climate change'.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    I'll got with that one,
    What one? NASA never defined 'climate change'.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    they put a man on the moon,
    Irrelevant. NASA never defined 'climate change'.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    that is enough proof to me they kinda know what they are doing
    Not a proof or a definition.

    Please define 'climate change'.
    Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating either the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

  8. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    But common sense does, you keep regurgitating an aborted weird version of solipsism to deflect off of the obvious

    And above I provided NASA's definition of climate change, I'll got with that one, they put a man on the moon, that is enough proof to me they kinda know what they are doing
    Same old bollocks over and over, so yet again I will remind you of the open letter sent to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden back in 2012 by 49 ex-personnel, including many of the top names that worked on the Apollo project, criticising the overt political stance taken by NASA GISS.

    You're like a broken record Arsecheese, your needle is stuck in the groove, somebody give him a nudge!

    https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_1418017

    https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_1418017

  9. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    But common sense does, you keep regurgitating an aborted weird version of solipsism to deflect off of the obvious

    And above I provided NASA's definition of climate change, I'll got with that one, they put a man on the moon, that is enough proof to me they kinda know what they are doing
    NASA GISS had nothing to do with Apollo, doddering old fool.

  10. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Climate Change = WEATHER. The End.

  11. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    If you define 'climate change' as 'weather', why not just say 'weather'???

  12. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    324
    Thanks
    272
    Thanked 79 Times in 62 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 21 Times in 19 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    NASA is not science. False Authority Fallacy.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to tff For This Post:

    evince (10-28-2019)

  14. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    If you define 'climate change' as 'weather', why not just say 'weather'???
    because you are a simple minded fool doesn't mean we have to make you feel better about your massive stupid by simplifying language

  15. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven VanderMolen View Post
    Climate Change = WEATHER. The End.
    and another simple minded fool


    Many humans have much better functioning brains than you do

    we refuse to join your stupid

  16. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    NASA GISS had nothing to do with Apollo, doddering old fool.
    says a russo bot hole from a nation that has ONLY ONE asset


    oil

  17. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 142
    Last Post: 06-28-2019, 11:59 AM
  2. Replies: 95
    Last Post: 06-27-2019, 09:38 AM
  3. Paul Krugman: The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial
    By Nomad in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-27-2018, 09:24 PM
  4. Future of Climate Denial
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2016, 01:35 PM
  5. Climate change denial is futile
    By Cancel4 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 09-07-2009, 12:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •