MikieFebruary 15, 2025 at 04:404100 views63 comments
A thread for climate change deniers to post whatever it is theyve read online today that selectively minimizes climate change or pretends that nothing can be done to stop it. Enjoy.
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records. The economic impact is in the hundreds of billions per year and increasing far outweighing the cost of transitioning to renewables and mitigation efforts (this rendering the argument that its too expensive rather absurd).
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
[hide]Borrowed from a prior post of mine a few years back. Worth repeating periodically for any newcomers to the thread, as its a decent and brief introduction. [/hide]
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 20, 2025 at 04:11#9707000 likes
Courts have ordered the president to release Biden-era climate money but hes holding out.
How this turns out will be significant in terms of legal precedent and will have some impact, but not a lot, on the transition to renewables. Likely to be stopped by the courts. Informative read. Gives detailed information about how funds are distributed.
Despite the USs current government doing its best to destroy the prospects of decent survival, the transition is happening. Likely too late, as it should have happened 40 years ago but it doesnt seem like one administration of dopey climate deniers and fossil fuel shills can really stop it.
That guy isnt relevant. I ignored him for over a year, and Ill do so again once I get my desktop and the ignore extension works again and in the meantime too.
The point of a new thread is that the less specific one attracts a lot of people who want to debate climate change itself and perhaps this distinguishes that a little in the future.
If things get too spammy, Ill just start a private group chain via messages.
No, it often does. Except when random imbeciles make Twitter-like comments for no reason the joy in that comes from laughing at them, I guess. Or should I say its risible.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 21, 2025 at 04:16#9710240 likes
The point of a new thread is that the less specific one attracts a lot of people who want to debate climate change itself and perhaps this distinguishes that a little in the future.
Mikie. Could you please explain what somebody must believe in order to avoid being called a "denier"?
This is a thread to discuss the current effects of climate change, predictions about its effects, and mitigation efforts.
Anyone interested in debating whether climate change is real, or wishes to post things from less than credible sources theres a separate thread for that purpose.
Logic 101: Someone who denies that climate change is real is discussing the effects of climate change. Their position is that the effect is nil.
Logic 101: those that deny the Holocaust ARE discussing the Holocaust Namely, that its effects were nil (i.e., didnt happen). Gotta allow that in a thread on the Holocaust, because otherwise its against the ethos of the forum.
Logic 101: those that deny the Holocaust ARE discussing the Holocaust Namely, that its effects were nil (i.e., didnt happen). Gotta allow that in a thread on the Holocaust, because otherwise its against the ethos of the forum.
Denying the Holocaust in a Holocaust thread is not against the philosophical ethos of the forum. It is against a rule of the forum. Just because it is not against the ethos of the forum does not mean that it is permissible.
So this is another logical error, namely the idea the that if one is not allowed to contravene the general ethos of the forum, then anything which does not contravene the general ethos of the forum is permissible.
I dont see any issue whatsoever with keeping things on topic
My Reply to point was that the topic as you defined it includes the folks you are attempting to exclude. This is no coincidence.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 02, 2025 at 12:09#9733330 likes
Bungling protestors drill holes in 100 Land Rover tyres in attack on 'fossil fuel death machines'... but all vehicles damaged were electric cars... :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:
A group of clumsy woke protestors drilled holes in hundreds of SUV tyres in an attack on 'fossil fuel death machines', not realising they were actually damaging electric vehicles.
Activist group Sabotage Oil for Survival targeted the Land Rover Truro dealership in the village of Scorrier, near Redruth, while other campaigners vandalised cars across Bristol and Exeter.
The group, who are based in Cornwall, posted to social media in the early hours of Monday, February 17, boasting that they had drilled into the tyres of 100 Land Rover SUVs.
But shortly after they posted the video to X, Vertu Land Rover Truro's Head of Business, Wayne McNally, confirmed the group's major error, saying: 'You've drilled through tyres on fully electric cars!!!'
Hey Mikie. I hope that you keep your EV in a locked garage. :scream:
Anti-Vaxx Mom Whose Daughter Died From Measles Says Disease 'Wasn't That Bad'
On topic I suppose.
During the interview, the young couple doubled down on their decision not to vaccinate their child even after her death. Hailing from the Mennonite community, they argued that if measles patients had access to untested treatments, the MMR vaccines would be entirely unnecessary.
"We spent the morning at Dr. Ben Edwards' clinic, and the parents are all still sitting there saying they would rather have this than the MMR vaccination because they've seen so much injury, which we have as well," journalist Polly Tommey said while interviewing the couple. "Do you still feel the same way about the MMR vaccine versus measles and the proper treatment with Dr. Ben Edwards?"
"Absolutely [do] not take the MMR [vaccine]," said the mother. "The measles wasn't that bad. [The other children] got over it pretty quickly. And Dr. Edwards was there for us."
His prediction {of the end of the world} for May 21, 2011 was widely reported, in part because of a large-scale publicity campaign by Family Radio, and it prompted ridicule from atheist organizations[14] and rebuttals from Christian organizations.[15] After May 21 passed without the predicted events, Camping said he believed that a "spiritual" judgment had occurred on that date, and that the physical Rapture would occur on October 21, 2011, simultaneously with the final destruction of the universe by God.[16] Except for one press appearance on May 23, 2011, Camping largely avoided press interviews after May 21, particularly after he suffered a stroke in June 2011.[17] After October 21, 2011, passed without the predicted apocalypse, the mainstream media labeled Camping a false prophet and commented that his ministry would collapse after the "failed 'Doomsday' prediction".
Living standards are falling across the political north, and the same anti-regulation anti-asset tax policies which ensure the fall are being enacted as its cure.
The prevailing social climate, increasingly, is one of a blanket denial of reality. And the majority of people I know, who do not deny the reality of things, have had to look away out of pain. You either take the blatant refutations of your beliefs as further invitation for faith, or look away from the precipice. Those are the easiest ways to cope. Denial has become a necessity.
Reply to fdrake
As a group, Mennonites aren't opposed to vaccines. Apparently these people were.
Apocalypticists like Camping have been around for thousands of years. That's coming from deep within the human psyche, not today's weirdness. Our time isn't really very bad compared to the 20th Century. That's demonstrated by the fact that we wince at change. We aren't used to it, but humans are incredibly adaptable. Have a little faith in us.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 21, 2025 at 22:50#9776280 likes
Have you considered all the ways that humanity could be improved by cutting our own bums off? Sounds like denial to me.
You have deliberately avoided answering the question that I asked. That is the sort of response that a climate fanatic/alarmist usually gives. Avoid the question and call people names.
Can you really not think of any positive things associated with climate change?
You can answer "no" if you really think that there are no positive things associated with climate change.
Every person would be a little lighter with no bum, meaning we'd need less calories. That could mean less production of food is required on a global level, and lead to a more equitable distribution of resources.
Smaller spaces between chairs in meeting rooms could be traversed without inappropriate bum placement.
Whole world's your oyster with no bum, mate.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 22, 2025 at 13:16#9777490 likes
How are you going to shite if you don't have a bum?
Since you won't give me an honest answer to my question I will give you some things to think about.
Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?
Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?
Read these article for some facts that you might not be aware of:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66890135
There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show.
https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future
Here are some of the results:
- Cold-related deaths vastly outnumber heat-related deaths in all countries
- Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, its over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.
You are obviously an expert at avoiding the facts that don't match your biases.
I provided an even handed discussion of the positives of total bum excision, I don't know what else you wanted. I might be able to intuit what you would see as an epistemically virtuous discussion if you phrase it in small baby terms regarding bums for me.
Glad to see this devolve into exactly the kind of absurdity that inspired it. Nice job boys :clap:
The only true way to deal with science-denying morons. Satire and sarcasm
This shows that the only way that climate fanatics and alarmists can respond to scientific facts is to start talking about irrelevant non-scientific things like "asses".
This is very mature guys and demonstrates what a bunch of losers you are.
Here are the original questions that you refuse to answer:
Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?
Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?
Why are these scientific facts true?
- Cold-related deaths vastly outnumber heat-related deaths in all countries
- Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, its over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.
As if that doesn't happen with the those who argue that a) climate change is not happening or b) if it's happening, it's not man made?
I disagree with the views that a) climate change is not happening or b) if it's happening, it's not man made. I don't think that scaremongering and exaggeration accompany those views. If anything there is reassurance that things don't need action and understating any possible risks.
I asked these questions hoping to get an honest rely. I think that people who are concerned about climate change should answer them. If they can't or won't answer these questions then I think that they are "deniers" and are not being realistic.
Here are the questions:
Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?
Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?
Why are these scientific facts true?
- Cold-related deaths vastly outnumber heat-related deaths in all countries
- Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, its over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.[/quote]
I think he/she is a bot, as in bottom. So could be in big bum after all.
Anything to avoid answering the questions. It seems that climate fanatics/alarmists just live in their own little echo chamber and are too scared to face the truth. :scream:
I was going to answer your questions in your reply to ssu, in the previous post. But realised they had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of climate change. It was some bogus question about people liking to visit warm places. More evidence of trolling and that theres no point engaging.
Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?
Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?
Why are these scientific facts true?
? ? ?
What?
Sorry, but as @Punshhh said above, this sounds very strange.
I do live in a country that even still has snow and cold winters. And yes, without clothes, you would freeze to death if being outside in the winter, which wouldn't happen in the tropics. Yet the human race has adapted to a cold climate well for a very, very long time.
Yet what does this have to do with climate change?
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 29, 2025 at 11:29#9794880 likes
I do live in a country that even still has snow and cold winters. And yes, without clothes, you would freeze to death if being outside in the winter, which wouldn't happen in the tropics
So why are you worried about a little bit of global warming?
So why are you worried about a little bit of global warming?
I've participated in the thread far longer that you have been a member, and I'm one of the ones that is an optimist here... if optimism means that you don't believe in the end of the World.
We are extremely adaptable and our societies are far more capable of handling environmental challenges than earlier societies in history. Things what for them caused famine and possible destruction of the society are for us inconveniences. Yet those inconveniences will affect your and my life. Or are already affecting.
And that being said, global warming or climate change has to be taken seriously. It is already having adverse effects and it does create then political instability, crises and wars. The link is just hard to see.
Should one be worried about it? Well, define being worried. I'm also worried that Europe is going closer to a war especially if Russia wins in Ukraine. Do I lose sleep over that idea or that climate change will have negative affects around the World?
No, but that doesn't mean that they aren't real threats to us.
And I think the proper thread where these issues have been discussed is the Climate Change denial -thread.
Science denial seems nonsensical. Where do go from that, if it's not just climate denial?
Reality denial?
And anyway, the world will end, as I stated on the first page of that Climate Change denial -thread in the most positive way:
Earth doesn't become flat because someone thinks so.
That is not what I meant.
@ssu said that he lives in a country that has snow and cold winters. I live in a country which has moderate temperatures. Some people live in countries that are hot.
We each experience "reality" in different ways. One person's "reality" does not necessarily invalidate a different person's "reality".
First of all, if you would live in a country with cold winters and snow, you would notice the cold weather. And I've been to the tropics, so I know how different the climate can be on this planet. The reality we are talking about isn't a subjective experience. We have subjective individual experiences, but we do share the same reality. One shouldn't confuse these two.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 30, 2025 at 20:36#9797200 likes
The reality we are talking about isn't a subjective experience. We have subjective individual experiences, but we do share the same reality. One shouldn't confuse these two.
Yes, we share the same reality. But any individual only experiences a "subset" of reality. It is like the parable of the blind men and an elephant.
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
"Reality" is the "big picture". But most people don't see or experience the "big picture". They only see a subset of reality (this includes what they are taught, read about, are told about, see in movies, see on the internet, etc.). There are also a lot of incorrect "facts", misinformation, disinformation, etc. How do you know that your experience of reality is correct and complete?
There are also a lot of incorrect "facts", misinformation, disinformation, etc. How do you know that your experience of reality is correct and complete?
- First, ask questions that have simple answers. It's the questions one poses that are important.
- Use Occam's razor
- New information has changed our World view many times through history. Yet that doesn't mean that the best theories we have now are useless.
If I'm proven wrong later and corrected, then that's good. I learn something new.
If there's a lot of misinformation and disinformation, 99% of it is detectable, if you have some basic knowledge of what basically should have been taught to you in school. And usually it's just something that is simply biased, someone pushing some agenda, not straight up lies. The easiest way to push an agenda is simply to select the facts and stay silent of anything that would question your objective or show the complexity behind the issue. Once you notice this, it's quite easy to live in an environment with mis- or disinformation.
Above all, if some issue is a political "hot potatoe", it's evident that there will be that bias around it. Give some time and the focus will be some other issue and you have a clearer view later.
Agree-to-DisagreeApril 02, 2025 at 05:22#9801500 likes
if you have some basic knowledge of what basically should have been taught to you in school.
Unfortunately modern schools seem to be "dumbing things down". They don't teach critical thinking and they push propaganda onto the students.
I agree with your points about questions with simple answers, Occam's razor, etc. But what proportion of the population has the skills to do that? I think that they are in the minority.
Is climate change a political "hot potato" which has bias around it?
What do you think?
Climate change / Environmental policy in general
Nuclear energy / energy policy in general
Genetical research... human genome research
gain of function research
Economics... the old name "political economy" describes well the nature of this subject.
International relations / security policy
Many things can become "hot potato" issues. Usually you can see it when two sides bring totally opposite views that are "based on facts". Especially when the create a very emotional response.
And many things do have a moral character and a moral question behind them.
Comments (63)
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records. The economic impact is in the hundreds of billions per year and increasing far outweighing the cost of transitioning to renewables and mitigation efforts (this rendering the argument that its too expensive rather absurd).
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
[hide]Borrowed from a prior post of mine a few years back. Worth repeating periodically for any newcomers to the thread, as its a decent and brief introduction. [/hide]
If this thread includes discussion of mitigation efforts, then it must also discuss the problems that will be caused by mitigation efforts.
Courts have ordered the president to release Biden-era climate money but hes holding out.
How this turns out will be significant in terms of legal precedent and will have some impact, but not a lot, on the transition to renewables. Likely to be stopped by the courts. Informative read. Gives detailed information about how funds are distributed.
Despite the USs current government doing its best to destroy the prospects of decent survival, the transition is happening. Likely too late, as it should have happened 40 years ago but it doesnt seem like one administration of dopey climate deniers and fossil fuel shills can really stop it.
Or could it be a place for people who disagree with you to talk amongst themselves?
Post away, of course, but no one need reply.
Then why not call the thread "Agree-to-Disagree deniers" ?
Restart the thread with that title in the lounge?
i.e. "Agree-to-Disagree deniers" -- seems pretty clear who is invited
That guy isnt relevant. I ignored him for over a year, and Ill do so again once I get my desktop and the ignore extension works again and in the meantime too.
The point of a new thread is that the less specific one attracts a lot of people who want to debate climate change itself and perhaps this distinguishes that a little in the future.
If things get too spammy, Ill just start a private group chain via messages.
Another idiot out of nowhere heard from cool. Valuable insight. :lol:
No, it often does. Except when random imbeciles make Twitter-like comments for no reason the joy in that comes from laughing at them, I guess. Or should I say its risible.
Mikie. Could you please explain what somebody must believe in order to avoid being called a "denier"?
Ill respond this one last time to you, then youre going on ignore:
Dont worry about it. Ive explained it before, but it really doesnt matter. Think of yourself any way you like, and be well. No hard feelings.
Logic 101: Someone who denies that climate change is real is discussing the effects of climate change. Their position is that the effect is nil.
Logic 101: those that deny the Holocaust ARE discussing the Holocaust Namely, that its effects were nil (i.e., didnt happen). Gotta allow that in a thread on the Holocaust, because otherwise its against the ethos of the forum.
Still a ways to go, but promising. Theres really not enough lithium for the long term.
Denying the Holocaust in a Holocaust thread is not against the philosophical ethos of the forum. It is against a rule of the forum. Just because it is not against the ethos of the forum does not mean that it is permissible.
So this is another logical error, namely the idea the that if one is not allowed to contravene the general ethos of the forum, then anything which does not contravene the general ethos of the forum is permissible.
.
My was that the topic as you defined it includes the folks you are attempting to exclude. This is no coincidence.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14427589/protestors-Land-Rover-attack-damaged-electric-cars.html
A group of clumsy woke protestors drilled holes in hundreds of SUV tyres in an attack on 'fossil fuel death machines', not realising they were actually damaging electric vehicles.
Activist group Sabotage Oil for Survival targeted the Land Rover Truro dealership in the village of Scorrier, near Redruth, while other campaigners vandalised cars across Bristol and Exeter.
The group, who are based in Cornwall, posted to social media in the early hours of Monday, February 17, boasting that they had drilled into the tyres of 100 Land Rover SUVs.
But shortly after they posted the video to X, Vertu Land Rover Truro's Head of Business, Wayne McNally, confirmed the group's major error, saying: 'You've drilled through tyres on fully electric cars!!!'
Hey Mikie. I hope that you keep your EV in a locked garage. :scream:
On topic I suppose.
Compare Harold Camping's doomsday following:
The refutation only entrenches belief. The bodies of climate change are already mounting, and the mountain will grow more.
Living standards are falling across the political north, and the same anti-regulation anti-asset tax policies which ensure the fall are being enacted as its cure.
The prevailing social climate, increasingly, is one of a blanket denial of reality. And the majority of people I know, who do not deny the reality of things, have had to look away out of pain. You either take the blatant refutations of your beliefs as further invitation for faith, or look away from the precipice. Those are the easiest ways to cope. Denial has become a necessity.
As a group, Mennonites aren't opposed to vaccines. Apparently these people were.
Apocalypticists like Camping have been around for thousands of years. That's coming from deep within the human psyche, not today's weirdness. Our time isn't really very bad compared to the 20th Century. That's demonstrated by the fact that we wince at change. We aren't used to it, but humans are incredibly adaptable. Have a little faith in us.
Can you think of any positive things associated with climate change?
Could it be that you are ignoring (a form of denial) any positive aspects and are concentrating on the negative aspects?
You have deliberately avoided answering the question that I asked. That is the sort of response that a climate fanatic/alarmist usually gives. Avoid the question and call people names.
Can you really not think of any positive things associated with climate change?
You can answer "no" if you really think that there are no positive things associated with climate change.
Have you even thought about it?
Smaller spaces between chairs in meeting rooms could be traversed without inappropriate bum placement.
Whole world's your oyster with no bum, mate.
That sounds like a load of shite to me.
How are you going to shite if you don't have a bum?
Since you won't give me an honest answer to my question I will give you some things to think about.
Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?
Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?
Read these article for some facts that you might not be aware of:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66890135
There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show.
https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future
Here are some of the results:
- Cold-related deaths vastly outnumber heat-related deaths in all countries
- Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, its over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.
Quoting fdrake
If you want to minimise the number of people that die from temperature related deaths then you should welcome a little warming.
Yes, and the considerable reduction in swamp ass from the global bumectomy seals the deal. My guy needs to get on this ASAP.
My faith's only ever been rewarded when I do something about it.
Take out pen and paper and write down what you're going to do.
I imagine you charge $150 an hour.
No it's totally free, man.
:lol:
This is great. I cant even see what youre responding to, but I love it all the same.
I just realised why you don't need a bum to shite out of.
It is because your shite comes out of your mouth. :rofl:
Hi Mikie
It is good to see that you can't stop looking at my posts. It must be hard for you that you can't respond.
Hugs and kisses xoxoxo
Agree-to-Disagree. :rofl:
They call this diversifying the oesophageal portfolio, I see your tail is very hedged, sir.
You are obviously an expert at avoiding the facts that don't match your biases.
This is a form of confirmation bias.
I accept that climate change is happening but I don't like the scaremongering, exaggeration, and bigotry that usually accompanies it.
I provided an even handed discussion of the positives of total bum excision, I don't know what else you wanted. I might be able to intuit what you would see as an epistemically virtuous discussion if you phrase it in small baby terms regarding bums for me.
That would be an assless society then.
Glad to see this devolve into exactly the kind of absurdity that inspired it. Nice job boys :clap:
The only true way to deal with science-denying morons. Satire and sarcasm.
This shows that the only way that climate fanatics and alarmists can respond to scientific facts is to start talking about irrelevant non-scientific things like "asses".
This is very mature guys and demonstrates what a bunch of losers you are.
Here are the original questions that you refuse to answer:
Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?
Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?
Why are these scientific facts true?
- Cold-related deaths vastly outnumber heat-related deaths in all countries
- Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, its over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.
Is this your job?
No. It's just a hobby.
I'm glad you're not in the pocket of Big Bum.
What's your real point?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
As if that doesn't happen with the those who argue that a) climate change is not happening or b) if it's happening, it's not man made?
They the more tolerant side here that are far more open for discussion?
****************************************
Science denial. Is it one step more from the definition of "climate-denial"?
I am trying to have an honest discussion about climate change.
Quoting ssu
I disagree with the views that a) climate change is not happening or b) if it's happening, it's not man made. I don't think that scaremongering and exaggeration accompany those views. If anything there is reassurance that things don't need action and understating any possible risks.
I asked these questions hoping to get an honest rely. I think that people who are concerned about climate change should answer them. If they can't or won't answer these questions then I think that they are "deniers" and are not being realistic.
Here are the questions:
Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?
Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?
Why are these scientific facts true?
- Cold-related deaths vastly outnumber heat-related deaths in all countries
- Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, its over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.[/quote]
I think he/she is a bot, as in bottom. So could be in big bum after all.
Anything to avoid answering the questions. It seems that climate fanatics/alarmists just live in their own little echo chamber and are too scared to face the truth. :scream:
Ok.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
What exactly you mean by this?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
? ? ?
What?
Sorry, but as @Punshhh said above, this sounds very strange.
I do live in a country that even still has snow and cold winters. And yes, without clothes, you would freeze to death if being outside in the winter, which wouldn't happen in the tropics. Yet the human race has adapted to a cold climate well for a very, very long time.
Yet what does this have to do with climate change?
So why are you worried about a little bit of global warming?
I've participated in the thread far longer that you have been a member, and I'm one of the ones that is an optimist here... if optimism means that you don't believe in the end of the World.
We are extremely adaptable and our societies are far more capable of handling environmental challenges than earlier societies in history. Things what for them caused famine and possible destruction of the society are for us inconveniences. Yet those inconveniences will affect your and my life. Or are already affecting.
And that being said, global warming or climate change has to be taken seriously. It is already having adverse effects and it does create then political instability, crises and wars. The link is just hard to see.
Should one be worried about it? Well, define being worried. I'm also worried that Europe is going closer to a war especially if Russia wins in Ukraine. Do I lose sleep over that idea or that climate change will have negative affects around the World?
No, but that doesn't mean that they aren't real threats to us.
And I think the proper thread where these issues have been discussed is the Climate Change denial -thread.
Science denial seems nonsensical. Where do go from that, if it's not just climate denial?
Reality denial?
And anyway, the world will end, as I stated on the first page of that Climate Change denial -thread in the most positive way:
Quoting ssu
Changed. :up:
No, actually very apt for our time.
Your reality or my reality?? :chin:
Earth doesn't become flat because someone thinks so.
That is not what I meant.
@ssu said that he lives in a country that has snow and cold winters. I live in a country which has moderate temperatures. Some people live in countries that are hot.
We each experience "reality" in different ways. One person's "reality" does not necessarily invalidate a different person's "reality".
First of all, if you would live in a country with cold winters and snow, you would notice the cold weather. And I've been to the tropics, so I know how different the climate can be on this planet. The reality we are talking about isn't a subjective experience. We have subjective individual experiences, but we do share the same reality. One shouldn't confuse these two.
Yes, we share the same reality. But any individual only experiences a "subset" of reality. It is like the parable of the blind men and an elephant.
Quoting The parable of the blind men and an elephant
"Reality" is the "big picture". But most people don't see or experience the "big picture". They only see a subset of reality (this includes what they are taught, read about, are told about, see in movies, see on the internet, etc.). There are also a lot of incorrect "facts", misinformation, disinformation, etc. How do you know that your experience of reality is correct and complete?
- First, ask questions that have simple answers. It's the questions one poses that are important.
- Use Occam's razor
- New information has changed our World view many times through history. Yet that doesn't mean that the best theories we have now are useless.
If I'm proven wrong later and corrected, then that's good. I learn something new.
If there's a lot of misinformation and disinformation, 99% of it is detectable, if you have some basic knowledge of what basically should have been taught to you in school. And usually it's just something that is simply biased, someone pushing some agenda, not straight up lies. The easiest way to push an agenda is simply to select the facts and stay silent of anything that would question your objective or show the complexity behind the issue. Once you notice this, it's quite easy to live in an environment with mis- or disinformation.
Above all, if some issue is a political "hot potatoe", it's evident that there will be that bias around it. Give some time and the focus will be some other issue and you have a clearer view later.
Unfortunately modern schools seem to be "dumbing things down". They don't teach critical thinking and they push propaganda onto the students.
I agree with your points about questions with simple answers, Occam's razor, etc. But what proportion of the population has the skills to do that? I think that they are in the minority.
Quoting ssu
Is climate change a political "hot potato" which has bias around it?
What do you think?
Climate change / Environmental policy in general
Nuclear energy / energy policy in general
Genetical research... human genome research
gain of function research
Economics... the old name "political economy" describes well the nature of this subject.
International relations / security policy
Many things can become "hot potato" issues. Usually you can see it when two sides bring totally opposite views that are "based on facts". Especially when the create a very emotional response.
And many things do have a moral character and a moral question behind them.