Topic: Fake anon's law
beckyderp !yDoooooooo started this discussion 9 years ago #57,467
<fake_anon> i won't say that all trump supporters are holocaust and/or climate change deniers
<fake_anon> but
<fake_anon> every single holocaust or climate change denier i've met
<fake_anon> has been a die hard trump supporer
<fake_anon> it's a little bit interesting don't you think
Discuss. Thanks.<fake_anon> but
<fake_anon> every single holocaust or climate change denier i've met
<fake_anon> has been a die hard trump supporer
<fake_anon> it's a little bit interesting don't you think
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #738,742
It's true because it's funny.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,748
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,749
Oh yeah well every Pizzagate denier is a Hillary supporter so take that!
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 20 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,750
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,752
@738,749 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
Not necessarily, but every pizzagate supporter is unequivocally a trump supporter thanks.
Not necessarily, but every pizzagate supporter is unequivocally a trump supporter thanks.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,755
Lorraine !oZfU/tvMPw joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,759
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Do you agree with the scientific consensus that it's being caused by human activities?
Do you agree with the scientific consensus that it's being caused by human activities?
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,762
@previous (Lorraine !oZfU/tvMPw)
> scientific consensus
Only if you dismiss the scientists that don't agree.
> scientific consensus
Only if you dismiss the scientists that don't agree.
brie !kGoudaMCFA joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 50 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,764
@738,759 (Lorraine !oZfU/tvMPw)
If you trace it back all the way, Global climate change can be shown to have been caused by the big bang.
I don't know any humans who claim to have been alive back then.
If you trace it back all the way, Global climate change can be shown to have been caused by the big bang.
I don't know any humans who claim to have been alive back then.
Lorraine !oZfU/tvMPw replied with this 9 years ago, 18 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,765
@738,762 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
All 4 of them
Edit ok this seemed snippy
What I mean to say is that concensus is not the same as unanimity
And a supermajority agree
All 4 of them
Edit ok this seemed snippy
What I mean to say is that concensus is not the same as unanimity
And a supermajority agree
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 9 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,772
@738,762 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
So you think that the majority of scientists that say humans are affecting it are wrong?
So you think that the majority of scientists that say humans are affecting it are wrong?
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,775
@738,765 (Lorraine !oZfU/tvMPw)
Even if it was one my statement still stands true. There's a correlation between CO2 and the rising temperature, but it doesn't go the way your "supermajority" of "scientists" is portraying it.
Hard evidence (slicing and analyzing ice on the artic) tells us that after every warming CO2 concentration increased, not the other way around.
And if you look at a global scale at what all produces CO2, human beings are a mere droplet in an ocean. But yeah, global warming is still happening, even is your "scientists" are utter retards.
Even if it was one my statement still stands true. There's a correlation between CO2 and the rising temperature, but it doesn't go the way your "supermajority" of "scientists" is portraying it.
Hard evidence (slicing and analyzing ice on the artic) tells us that after every warming CO2 concentration increased, not the other way around.
And if you look at a global scale at what all produces CO2, human beings are a mere droplet in an ocean. But yeah, global warming is still happening, even is your "scientists" are utter retards.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Lorraine !oZfU/tvMPw replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,777
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 30 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,778
@738,775 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
And I presume you've studied this for years and have a degree in the scientific field to arrive to such a theory?
And I presume you've studied this for years and have a degree in the scientific field to arrive to such a theory?
Lorraine !oZfU/tvMPw replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,779
@previous (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
It's okay, he knows how to call people retards and use scare quotes. Everything else is superfluous.
It's okay, he knows how to call people retards and use scare quotes. Everything else is superfluous.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,782
@738,775 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Isn't it weird how so many scientists and experts are deluded retards who keep going against conservative interests?
Isn't it weird how so many scientists and experts are deluded retards who keep going against conservative interests?
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,783
@738,777 (Lorraine !oZfU/tvMPw)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
One of them, to cite:
> CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes
T. Hanks
Thank S.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
One of them, to cite:
> CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes
T. Hanks
Thank S.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,784
@738,778 (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
Of course not. But guys like him have gotten very good at ignoring and circumnavigating experts that disagree with them. And there are a lot of these experts.
Sheep, and people like him, are world-class mental gymnasts.
Of course not. But guys like him have gotten very good at ignoring and circumnavigating experts that disagree with them. And there are a lot of these experts.
Sheep, and people like him, are world-class mental gymnasts.
Lorraine !oZfU/tvMPw replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,785
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,788
@738,782 (C)
> conservative
Oh, now I even got a neat label, thanks.
@738,784 (C)
> world-class mental gymnasts
Coming from someone who invented the sport, I take this as a compliment, thanks, I'm flattered.
But most of all I'm amazed at how you'll put words in my mouth to suit your agenda.
Do I think we should switch to more green and sustainable tech?
Yes I do, but not because I think burning coal and fossil fuel harms the planet on a global scale, but on a local scale, it's shit (if you wanna see this in action go to the Croatian town called Sisak where it smells like rotten eggs 24/7 because of the oil refinery).
I also think we should kill of the crude oil cartel and switch to electric for most of our needs.
But yes, you'll label me conservative and be done with it. Ignorance is bliss.
> conservative
Oh, now I even got a neat label, thanks.
@738,784 (C)
> world-class mental gymnasts
Coming from someone who invented the sport, I take this as a compliment, thanks, I'm flattered.
But most of all I'm amazed at how you'll put words in my mouth to suit your agenda.
Do I think we should switch to more green and sustainable tech?
Yes I do, but not because I think burning coal and fossil fuel harms the planet on a global scale, but on a local scale, it's shit (if you wanna see this in action go to the Croatian town called Sisak where it smells like rotten eggs 24/7 because of the oil refinery).
I also think we should kill of the crude oil cartel and switch to electric for most of our needs.
But yes, you'll label me conservative and be done with it. Ignorance is bliss.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 25 seconds later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,789
Here is a Wikipedia page, listing all of the scientific organisations across the world that say that climate change is being caused (or at least heavily influenced by) human activity. Note how no scientific organisation is listed as saying the opposite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Opposing
Now, watch as Sheep has to say that all of these organisations are crooked, biased, or in on a huge conspiracy. He can't admit that he's wrong, so now he has to call thousands of scientists "retards".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Opposing
Now, watch as Sheep has to say that all of these organisations are crooked, biased, or in on a huge conspiracy. He can't admit that he's wrong, so now he has to call thousands of scientists "retards".
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,790
@738,785 (Lorraine !oZfU/tvMPw)
@previous (C)
I love you guys for your ability of reading and using your brain to think.
Even the NOAA.gov graphs show that CO2 LAGS BEHIND the rising of temperature, and yet you all will ride this "CO2 IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING" wave.
Never change.
@previous (C)
I love you guys for your ability of reading and using your brain to think.
Even the NOAA.gov graphs show that CO2 LAGS BEHIND the rising of temperature, and yet you all will ride this "CO2 IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING" wave.
Never change.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,791
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
And he hasn't actually bothered trying to opppse a worldwide scientific consensus of:
> The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.
Instead, he's just ducked the consensus.
Go on Sheep, call the world's scientists wrong! You have to do it now, or you'll be admitting that your stance isn't scientific.
And he hasn't actually bothered trying to opppse a worldwide scientific consensus of:
> The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.
Instead, he's just ducked the consensus.
Go on Sheep, call the world's scientists wrong! You have to do it now, or you'll be admitting that your stance isn't scientific.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #738,793
@previous (C)
Anything that a scientist learns by studying in school and then working professionally for decades, is simply no match for one man with a google search and a penchant for websites designed in 1999.
Anything that a scientist learns by studying in school and then working professionally for decades, is simply no match for one man with a google search and a penchant for websites designed in 1999.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,794
@738,791 (C)
> scientific consensus
As I said, only if you dismiss the ones that don't agree.
> extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher)
We all remember how the scientific consensus was that Trump had less than 1.5% chance of winning, lol. (this was written just to trigger you, and even tho I'm writing the reason I've written it, you'll get triggered)
Also, I'm a gambler, just like I do at the skatepark, I'll take my chances with this one.
I mean, if in a period of over 400k years, CO2 always lagged around 800 years behind global warming (and it makes sense, temperature rises, oceans and more wildlife release CO2) you bet your fat ass I'll assume the same is happening again, and CO2 is not the cause, but mere the result.
That still doesn't change the fact that I do support going greener, but not because of a global scale, but a local. I've seen what bad resource management can do to nature, and I quite frankly like clean crisp nature, drinking fresh water from natural wells etc. and I'd like to save some places where you can still do that.
> scientific consensus
As I said, only if you dismiss the ones that don't agree.
> extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher)
We all remember how the scientific consensus was that Trump had less than 1.5% chance of winning, lol. (this was written just to trigger you, and even tho I'm writing the reason I've written it, you'll get triggered)
Also, I'm a gambler, just like I do at the skatepark, I'll take my chances with this one.
I mean, if in a period of over 400k years, CO2 always lagged around 800 years behind global warming (and it makes sense, temperature rises, oceans and more wildlife release CO2) you bet your fat ass I'll assume the same is happening again, and CO2 is not the cause, but mere the result.
That still doesn't change the fact that I do support going greener, but not because of a global scale, but a local. I've seen what bad resource management can do to nature, and I quite frankly like clean crisp nature, drinking fresh water from natural wells etc. and I'd like to save some places where you can still do that.
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,795
Can we talk about DasSheeple's Holocaust denial yet?
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,798
@738,794 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
You just can't quite bring yourself to dismiss the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists. Come on, Sheep. Why are so many of them wrong? Are they corrupt? Or retarded?
You need to find some way to dismiss all of these inconvenient experts that are contradicting your fringe viewpoint! I thought you were good at that?
You just can't quite bring yourself to dismiss the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists. Come on, Sheep. Why are so many of them wrong? Are they corrupt? Or retarded?
You need to find some way to dismiss all of these inconvenient experts that are contradicting your fringe viewpoint! I thought you were good at that?
Anonymous C double-posted this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,799
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,800
@previous (C)
He went to visit Auschwitz and saw windows on the gas chambers so he determined the holocaust is a hoax. WSD is now explaining on IRC that he will agree some Jews did die of "neglect" at concentration camps, but there was no plan for genocide.
He went to visit Auschwitz and saw windows on the gas chambers so he determined the holocaust is a hoax. WSD is now explaining on IRC that he will agree some Jews did die of "neglect" at concentration camps, but there was no plan for genocide.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,801
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,804
@738,800 (beckyderp !yDoooooooo)
I'm not surprised. Sheep seems to naturally gravitate to the most idiotic opinion in most matters.
I wonder what he thinks of the overwhelming majority of historians who say it did happen? Are they retards, corrupt, or will he simply dodge the question and say that "not all" historians agree?
I'm not surprised. Sheep seems to naturally gravitate to the most idiotic opinion in most matters.
I wonder what he thinks of the overwhelming majority of historians who say it did happen? Are they retards, corrupt, or will he simply dodge the question and say that "not all" historians agree?
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,805
@738,801 (I)
<WSDphone> I do believe many died under the neglect of the Nazi camps
<WSDphone> But not necessarily were all exterminated
<becky> neglect lol
<fake_anon> nglect
<fake_anon> god damn
<becky> "sorry we forgot about you out there"
<WSDphone> Lol
<DasSheeple> and then we also have that 1919 article already mentioning 6mil jews ying
<WSDphone> Like camp sumter
<fake_anon> neglect is like you leave your kid ina hot car
<WSDphone> Or jasenovac
<becky> yeah i sometimes leave my jew in a hot oven
<becky> oops :3
<WSDphone> It was neglect. In the war effort which mattered more, the SS pensions or the jews
<WSDphone> Something had to give
<WSDphone> So they had to kill the jews
<WSDphone> To save money
<WSDphone> Rounded them up with census data and neglected them due to moneys of the war effort
<WSDphone> Becky I'm not denying the holocaust but
<WSDphone> Nvm
<DasSheeple> now that trump will be in charge
<DasSheeple> do you think you'll be one of the next 6mil fake_anon?
<fake_anon> "im not denying the holocaust but..." is probably the worst way to start a sentence
<fake_anon> fyi
<DasSheeple> I don't deny the holocoust as is
<fake_anon> DasSheeple: no i am joining a church
<becky> lol and asking a jew if he thinks he's next may also not be the best rhetorical strategy
<WSDphone> I do believe many died under the neglect of the Nazi camps
<WSDphone> But not necessarily were all exterminated
<becky> neglect lol
<fake_anon> nglect
<fake_anon> god damn
<becky> "sorry we forgot about you out there"
<WSDphone> Lol
<DasSheeple> and then we also have that 1919 article already mentioning 6mil jews ying
<WSDphone> Like camp sumter
<fake_anon> neglect is like you leave your kid ina hot car
<WSDphone> Or jasenovac
<becky> yeah i sometimes leave my jew in a hot oven
<becky> oops :3
<WSDphone> It was neglect. In the war effort which mattered more, the SS pensions or the jews
<WSDphone> Something had to give
<WSDphone> So they had to kill the jews
<WSDphone> To save money
<WSDphone> Rounded them up with census data and neglected them due to moneys of the war effort
<WSDphone> Becky I'm not denying the holocaust but
<WSDphone> Nvm
<DasSheeple> now that trump will be in charge
<DasSheeple> do you think you'll be one of the next 6mil fake_anon?
<fake_anon> "im not denying the holocaust but..." is probably the worst way to start a sentence
<fake_anon> fyi
<DasSheeple> I don't deny the holocoust as is
<fake_anon> DasSheeple: no i am joining a church
<becky> lol and asking a jew if he thinks he's next may also not be the best rhetorical strategy
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,806
@previous (beckyderp !yDoooooooo)
Okay, so at least he isn't denying it outright. But, as usual, he prefers a conspiracy theorist outlook.
Okay, so at least he isn't denying it outright. But, as usual, he prefers a conspiracy theorist outlook.
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,807
<DasSheeple> it's the numbers that don't add up
<DasSheeple> was there a cleansing? yes
<DasSheeple> and with all the doubt going on, you don't let people digg out those mass graves
<DasSheeple> if you're so sure about it why would you deny them digging
<becky> it's a fucking grave site for their loved ones
<becky> regardless of what nutters find theyre going to continue denying it
<DasSheeple> imagine one what a guilt trip you could send the whiteys if you really found teeth of 6mil burned jews
<DasSheeple> but then again, what would happen if it turned out it's not 6mil
<DasSheeple> can't let that happen, can we?
<DasSheeple> was there a cleansing? yes
<DasSheeple> and with all the doubt going on, you don't let people digg out those mass graves
<DasSheeple> if you're so sure about it why would you deny them digging
<becky> it's a fucking grave site for their loved ones
<becky> regardless of what nutters find theyre going to continue denying it
<DasSheeple> imagine one what a guilt trip you could send the whiteys if you really found teeth of 6mil burned jews
<DasSheeple> but then again, what would happen if it turned out it's not 6mil
<DasSheeple> can't let that happen, can we?
(Edited 55 seconds later.)
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) double-posted this 9 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #738,810
<fake_anon> digging up dead jews is like vaccuming cum out of your girlfriend's vagina
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,813
<DasSheeple> bottom line being, you don't want me to seek the truth by trying to dig out and document all dead
<DasSheeple> but you also don't want me to question your undocumented, pulled out of thin air, numbers
<DasSheeple> and you call me crazy
So you don't have to becky.
<DasSheeple> but you also don't want me to question your undocumented, pulled out of thin air, numbers
<DasSheeple> and you call me crazy
So you don't have to becky.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,814
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
> pulled out of thin air
> massive consensus by trained historians
You are incredible. Do I even need to bother finding an article about how the overwhelming majority of historians do indeed place the death toll around 6 million? I know you will just deny it.
> pulled out of thin air
> massive consensus by trained historians
You are incredible. Do I even need to bother finding an article about how the overwhelming majority of historians do indeed place the death toll around 6 million? I know you will just deny it.
Anonymous C double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,816
Also notice how he's gone silent on climate change. I guess he didn't have the guts to call most climate change scientists retards? Was that too far even for him?
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,817
At what point does it become denial? Like what if you say that 6 million Jews perished, but from Typhus or starvation not gas chambers? Or what if you say that there were gas chambers, but only 5 million died?
Or what if you say 5,999,999 Jews died in the Holocaust? You're at 99.9999833% of the consensus total but does being off by 1 make it denial? If so how can the total be exactly 6,000,000?
Or what if you go over and say it was 7 million?
Or what if you say 5,999,999 Jews died in the Holocaust? You're at 99.9999833% of the consensus total but does being off by 1 make it denial? If so how can the total be exactly 6,000,000?
Or what if you go over and say it was 7 million?
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,818
@738,816 (C)
I find it amusing how you didn't comment the fact that the rise of CO2 is the result of a happening, not the cause.
And it's fact as in, you can see it on heat/CO2 graphs even on the NOAA.gov websites. For 400k years, same pattern. Globe heats up, CO2 released, globe cools down, CO2 concentration goes down.
For 400k years (that's how much they analyzed the ice/soil on the artic).
I find it amusing how you didn't comment the fact that the rise of CO2 is the result of a happening, not the cause.
And it's fact as in, you can see it on heat/CO2 graphs even on the NOAA.gov websites. For 400k years, same pattern. Globe heats up, CO2 released, globe cools down, CO2 concentration goes down.
For 400k years (that's how much they analyzed the ice/soil on the artic).
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,821
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Yet again, too shy to actually call most scientists retards. Come on, if you're going to take a crazy viewpoint, you might as well go all the way!
And yes, I can ignore what you're saying because the world's scientists have considered your evidence, and determined that it doesn't change their consensus. But you absolutely will not comment on that, because you're too fucking scared to admit that yours is a fringe view not supported by mainstream science.
Yet again, too shy to actually call most scientists retards. Come on, if you're going to take a crazy viewpoint, you might as well go all the way!
And yes, I can ignore what you're saying because the world's scientists have considered your evidence, and determined that it doesn't change their consensus. But you absolutely will not comment on that, because you're too fucking scared to admit that yours is a fringe view not supported by mainstream science.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,824
@previous (C)
There's a fairly good explanation of what he's talking about (and why it's not really the proof he thinks it is) here.
There's a fairly good explanation of what he's talking about (and why it's not really the proof he thinks it is) here.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 26 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,825
@738,821 (C)
We're running in circles, and yes, I'll consider them retards until someone actually steps up and explains what broke a 400k old pattern this time around, and how CO2 is now a cause all of a sudden, and not the result.
We're running in circles, and yes, I'll consider them retards until someone actually steps up and explains what broke a 400k old pattern this time around, and how CO2 is now a cause all of a sudden, and not the result.
Anonymous I replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,826
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Shut the fuck up retard.
I will add pictures to all of your posts if you don't settle down.
Shut the fuck up retard.
I will add pictures to all of your posts if you don't settle down.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,829
@previous (I)> Although the biggest source of greenhouse gas is our oceans, the world's natural wetlands also produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined. Furthermore, Animals and volcanoes produce so much CO2 that it completely dwarfs mankinds insignificantly tiny emissions.
No need, I'll add my own pictures :)
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 14 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,830
@738,824 (J)
Thank you.
@738,825 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Hahahaha! And there it is, folks! The majority of scientists are, according to Sheep, retards!
Forget years of study and education, where thousands of scientists have failed, one man without any scientific training has found the truth!
Thank you.
@738,825 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Hahahaha! And there it is, folks! The majority of scientists are, according to Sheep, retards!
Forget years of study and education, where thousands of scientists have failed, one man without any scientific training has found the truth!
Anonymous C double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,832
@738,829 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Don't forget about this:
@738,824 (J)
Since you are more knowledgable that most scientists, refuting this should be easy.
Don't forget about this:
@738,824 (J)
Since you are more knowledgable that most scientists, refuting this should be easy.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,836
@previous (C)
You cite @738,824 (J) as if it was stating CO2 is the cause. That article talks a lot about CO2 and temperature correlation without talking about it.
It says how "CO2 lagging behind temperature" is just half of the story without telling the other half. And in the end it also doesn't explain how the earth manages to cool down and go into another ice age during peak CO2 times.
And then there's @738,829 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Humans accounting for such a huge amount of greenhouse gasses.
And you won't touch any of these points. Thanks but no thanks. This discussion is retarded.
> one man without any scientific training
Did you just assume mygender scientific training?
You cite @738,824 (J) as if it was stating CO2 is the cause. That article talks a lot about CO2 and temperature correlation without talking about it.
It says how "CO2 lagging behind temperature" is just half of the story without telling the other half. And in the end it also doesn't explain how the earth manages to cool down and go into another ice age during peak CO2 times.
And then there's @738,829 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Humans accounting for such a huge amount of greenhouse gasses.
And you won't touch any of these points. Thanks but no thanks. This discussion is retarded.
> one man without any scientific training
Did you just assume my
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,839
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Already said, don't need to. The vast majority of trained scientists have already gone over this evidence and still kept their conclusion. But, as they are inconvenient for you, you dismiss them all as "retards" in particularly impressive feat of mental gymnastics.
It's funny seeing the lengths you go to to avoid admitting you're wrong. But at the same time, it's terrifying that there are lots of others like you, who can ignore any and all hard evidence that contradicts their irrational beliefs.
Already said, don't need to. The vast majority of trained scientists have already gone over this evidence and still kept their conclusion. But, as they are inconvenient for you, you dismiss them all as "retards" in particularly impressive feat of mental gymnastics.
It's funny seeing the lengths you go to to avoid admitting you're wrong. But at the same time, it's terrifying that there are lots of others like you, who can ignore any and all hard evidence that contradicts their irrational beliefs.
dw joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 21 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,848
@738,829 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
That's a small percentage but it doesn't mean necessarily that it isn't enough to throw of the natural way of things. As I understand it, it is in fact enough.
That's a small percentage but it doesn't mean necessarily that it isn't enough to throw of the natural way of things. As I understand it, it is in fact enough.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 35 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,850
@738,839 (C)
I side with more than 1000, thanks. And that is related to "man made" as I've been pushing this whole thread. Not denying that the globe is warming past years, because those are measurable facts. But I reject your belief that it's man made. T. Hanks.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284
I side with more than 1000, thanks. And that is related to "man made" as I've been pushing this whole thread. Not denying that the globe is warming past years, because those are measurable facts. But I reject your belief that it's man made. T. Hanks.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284
dw replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,852
@738,829 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Also does that take into account that the ocean is eating up massive amounts of co2?
Also does that take into account that the ocean is eating up massive amounts of co2?
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 58 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,853
Fake anons other law is that all Hillary supporters are closet communists
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,854
R.I.P. Anonymous C
He was last seen reading a 321 page long special report about climate change. He went into cardiac arrest when he saw that, among others, some highly reputable ex NASA scientists agree with the report.
His mom will message me about the funeral details if anyone will want to go.
He was last seen reading a 321 page long special report about climate change. He went into cardiac arrest when he saw that, among others, some highly reputable ex NASA scientists agree with the report.
His mom will message me about the funeral details if anyone will want to go.
Anonymous J replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,855
@738,836 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
> You cite @738,824 (J) as if it was stating CO2 is the cause. That article talks a lot about CO2 and temperature correlation without talking about it. It says how "CO2 lagging behind temperature" is just half of the story without telling the other half. And in the end it also doesn't explain how the earth manages to cool down and go into another ice age during peak CO2 times.
Yeah, you may have to actually read some of the cited papers. It explains that CO2 both leads and lags depending on hemisphere, and the CO2 released during a warming caused by orbital cycles can further drive warming. Your thinking seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy in that you seem to imply that CO2 can't be both a result and a cause. The two are not mutually exclusive.
As for putting the breaks on runaway positive feedback, factors like moving out of the part of the orbital cycle that caused the initial warming can cause higher CO2 absorption by the oceans; weathering of minerals exposed during glacial melt can also pull CO2 out of the atmosphere; the influx of fresh water into the oceans due to glacial melt will also disrupt ocean patterns that pull warmer waters into cooler waters causing a general cooling effect in some places. Factors like these provide enough negative feedback to eventually establish a new equilibrium.
I don't really want to sit here and retype the papers for you, if want more of an explanation then go read them.
> You cite @738,824 (J) as if it was stating CO2 is the cause. That article talks a lot about CO2 and temperature correlation without talking about it. It says how "CO2 lagging behind temperature" is just half of the story without telling the other half. And in the end it also doesn't explain how the earth manages to cool down and go into another ice age during peak CO2 times.
Yeah, you may have to actually read some of the cited papers. It explains that CO2 both leads and lags depending on hemisphere, and the CO2 released during a warming caused by orbital cycles can further drive warming. Your thinking seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy in that you seem to imply that CO2 can't be both a result and a cause. The two are not mutually exclusive.
As for putting the breaks on runaway positive feedback, factors like moving out of the part of the orbital cycle that caused the initial warming can cause higher CO2 absorption by the oceans; weathering of minerals exposed during glacial melt can also pull CO2 out of the atmosphere; the influx of fresh water into the oceans due to glacial melt will also disrupt ocean patterns that pull warmer waters into cooler waters causing a general cooling effect in some places. Factors like these provide enough negative feedback to eventually establish a new equilibrium.
I don't really want to sit here and retype the papers for you, if want more of an explanation then go read them.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,857
@738,854 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
lol. Look at you, scrounging for scraps of supporting evidence.
Come on, just own the fact that you're anti-science. There is no need to be so desperate for the approval of just a few expert figures when you already said most of them are retards.
lol. Look at you, scrounging for scraps of supporting evidence.
Come on, just own the fact that you're anti-science. There is no need to be so desperate for the approval of just a few expert figures when you already said most of them are retards.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,858
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,859
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
And there it is! The world's scientists are not merely retarded, they are also part of a huge conspiracy! But fear not, idiots like Sheep see right through their crafty lies!
And there it is! The world's scientists are not merely retarded, they are also part of a huge conspiracy! But fear not, idiots like Sheep see right through their crafty lies!
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,919
Climate change scientists believe the magic bullet theory that killed JFK. It is the established scientific model, all nay sayers are conspiracy nuts. It is the only possible explanation. Scientists learned this in school and know it as fact.
Climate change scientists also proved that cigarettes are not harmful when smoked. A bunch of conspiracy nuts tried to disagree. There were even some scientists who dissented but to believe them was to open yourself to ridicule by aloof white educated males who smoked.
I'm not saying magic bullets killed 6 million Jews either, but a first hand account of the Holocaust was given by a Jew in the "death camp" that was receiving medical treatment on his foot. Presumably they only wanted to kill 6 million healthy, smoking, able bodied Jews. I can believe that.
I didn't vote but I would have voted for Hillary. Thanks
Climate change scientists also proved that cigarettes are not harmful when smoked. A bunch of conspiracy nuts tried to disagree. There were even some scientists who dissented but to believe them was to open yourself to ridicule by aloof white educated males who smoked.
I'm not saying magic bullets killed 6 million Jews either, but a first hand account of the Holocaust was given by a Jew in the "death camp" that was receiving medical treatment on his foot. Presumably they only wanted to kill 6 million healthy, smoking, able bodied Jews. I can believe that.
I didn't vote but I would have voted for Hillary. Thanks
bu joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,922
@738,858 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
you are exposing yourself to be as retarded as Sophie and it's funny
you are exposing yourself to be as retarded as Sophie and it's funny
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,926
@previous (bu)
No, it's just that most scientists are retards with an agenda. It's very logical, why can't you see that?
No, it's just that most scientists are retards with an agenda. It's very logical, why can't you see that?
bu replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,932
@previous (C)
yeah I guess you're right. i guess I'll start listening to croatian skate bums for my opinions on science now
yeah I guess you're right. i guess I'll start listening to croatian skate bums for my opinions on science now
assORted !jJEom8Ii3E joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 50 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,934
dw replied with this 9 years ago, 57 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #738,960
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 9 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,055
@738,922 (bu)
No you're exposing yourself as a completely brainwashed mora who never does his own research.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsoVYStL6gQ <- this is literally you (the mexican girl and her lefty friend).
Anonymous C dismisses every piece of evidence that doesn't fit his agenda, calls over 1000 reputable scientists retards, and puts words in my mouth, labels me and dismisses every chance for any normal discussion. I could go the same way he does.
LOK AT THIS GIGANTIC FUCKTARD ANONYMOUS C. NASA SCIENTISTS HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, ANONYMOUS C DOES THO. A MAN WITH 0 SCIENTIFIC TRAINING, WE SHOULD JUST BELIEVE HIS WORD BECAUSE THE "MEGAMAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS" TOLD HIM!! HAHAHAHAHAHA
And it's still funny, the link I provided with the 321 pages long report (and you two didn't address a single point from it) and there are people standing with their name and surname behind it. While all you guys provide is "EVERY SCIENTIST".
And then there's @738,932 (bu)
> croatian skate bums
1st - Slovenian
2nd - at the time I was riding at skateparks as a full time job, I was making more money than I needed to live a decent life, and on top of that, my accommodation was always paid for, that hardly qualifies as bum.
But it's funny, you guys spent half of the thread insulting me on a personal level, calling me names and shit. Grate job, really grate!
No you're exposing yourself as a completely brainwashed mora who never does his own research.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsoVYStL6gQ <- this is literally you (the mexican girl and her lefty friend).
Anonymous C dismisses every piece of evidence that doesn't fit his agenda, calls over 1000 reputable scientists retards, and puts words in my mouth, labels me and dismisses every chance for any normal discussion. I could go the same way he does.
LOK AT THIS GIGANTIC FUCKTARD ANONYMOUS C. NASA SCIENTISTS HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, ANONYMOUS C DOES THO. A MAN WITH 0 SCIENTIFIC TRAINING, WE SHOULD JUST BELIEVE HIS WORD BECAUSE THE "MEGAMAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS" TOLD HIM!! HAHAHAHAHAHA
And it's still funny, the link I provided with the 321 pages long report (and you two didn't address a single point from it) and there are people standing with their name and surname behind it. While all you guys provide is "EVERY SCIENTIST".
And then there's @738,932 (bu)
> croatian skate bums
1st - Slovenian
2nd - at the time I was riding at skateparks as a full time job, I was making more money than I needed to live a decent life, and on top of that, my accommodation was always paid for, that hardly qualifies as bum.
But it's funny, you guys spent half of the thread insulting me on a personal level, calling me names and shit. Grate job, really grate!
bu replied with this 9 years ago, 9 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,056
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
yes you are the most successful and intelligent person here. maybe in the world!
yes you are the most successful and intelligent person here. maybe in the world!
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,057
@previous (bu)
And this is why I love you. With you guys there's no sane middle ground. Everyone has to be on an extreme. If I told you I agree with Trump that ILLEGAL IMIGRANTS should be deported back to where they came from if they engaged in criminal activity, you'd label me conservative and draw a conclusion that I'm against abortion and woman rights etc. etc.
That's how retarded you are.
And this is why I love you. With you guys there's no sane middle ground. Everyone has to be on an extreme. If I told you I agree with Trump that ILLEGAL IMIGRANTS should be deported back to where they came from if they engaged in criminal activity, you'd label me conservative and draw a conclusion that I'm against abortion and woman rights etc. etc.
That's how retarded you are.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,058
@739,055 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Haha, still kicking! I like that. Don't let those nasty facts keep you down.
Okay then, let me ask you, if this small minority of "reputable" scientists are the only ones telling the truth on climate change, why are the vast majority of scientists saying the opposite? Why is that?
I can't wait to hear what stupid bullshit you'll give in reply to that. Are they brainwashed by the media? Are they in on a huge conspiracy to line their pockets? Or will you say something even more retarded, like they're a part of the Illuminati?
Haha, still kicking! I like that. Don't let those nasty facts keep you down.
Okay then, let me ask you, if this small minority of "reputable" scientists are the only ones telling the truth on climate change, why are the vast majority of scientists saying the opposite? Why is that?
I can't wait to hear what stupid bullshit you'll give in reply to that. Are they brainwashed by the media? Are they in on a huge conspiracy to line their pockets? Or will you say something even more retarded, like they're a part of the Illuminati?
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 17 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,060
@previous (C)
I wish we had this discussion a week before the elections.
Just because the majority agrees on something (LOLOLOL TRUMP HAS 1.5% CHANCE OF WINNING) doesn't mean that same majority is right.
But it's also noteworthy that, while both sides argue on whose fault this current warming is (natural cause or man made), both sides agree that we'll know for sure only in 150-200 years when there's enough data and everything unfolds. And your like, LOLOLOL THEY SAID 95% SURE, YOU ARE RETARDE HAHAHA
I wish we had this discussion a week before the elections.
Just because the majority agrees on something (LOLOLOL TRUMP HAS 1.5% CHANCE OF WINNING) doesn't mean that same majority is right.
But it's also noteworthy that, while both sides argue on whose fault this current warming is (natural cause or man made), both sides agree that we'll know for sure only in 150-200 years when there's enough data and everything unfolds. And your like, LOLOLOL THEY SAID 95% SURE, YOU ARE RETARDE HAHAHA
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 29 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,064
@739,058 (C)
Most scientists won't say anything that goes against current scientific thinking. It would ruin their chance at securing research funding if they are seen to have a different view. Even when direct evidence clearly disproves the current model or what is the current theory. Just look at Gobekli Tepe and then ask why science ignores it's age because it's over 12,000 years old and predates Stonehenge by about 6000 years. Why hasn't the history of early civilizations been revised? That predates the current scientific theory of when the wheel was invented. But scientists won't change their thinking, their theories, won't disagree with their professors who taught them what to think, and the status quo remains.
Scientists always fiercely push against dissenting views that challenge their long held theories. They were taught these things, they go on to teach these things, and spend their careers talking about and studying these things. Then someone comes along pointing at evidence showing that their whole world is built on a lie and misinformation. They don't just say "fuck it, that was a waste of time learning all this stuff that's now wrong, oh well my career looks over now and I look like a fool" They do everything they can to prove they were right all along.
Most scientists won't say anything that goes against current scientific thinking. It would ruin their chance at securing research funding if they are seen to have a different view. Even when direct evidence clearly disproves the current model or what is the current theory. Just look at Gobekli Tepe and then ask why science ignores it's age because it's over 12,000 years old and predates Stonehenge by about 6000 years. Why hasn't the history of early civilizations been revised? That predates the current scientific theory of when the wheel was invented. But scientists won't change their thinking, their theories, won't disagree with their professors who taught them what to think, and the status quo remains.
Scientists always fiercely push against dissenting views that challenge their long held theories. They were taught these things, they go on to teach these things, and spend their careers talking about and studying these things. Then someone comes along pointing at evidence showing that their whole world is built on a lie and misinformation. They don't just say "fuck it, that was a waste of time learning all this stuff that's now wrong, oh well my career looks over now and I look like a fool" They do everything they can to prove they were right all along.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 13 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,065
@739,060 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Once again, you show hesitation in fully disowning the scientific consensus. You already called the scientists supporting it retards, so why not follow through on that? Do you still value their opinions, if only a little?
Although I can at least commend you on you now adopting a wait-and-see approach. That is a moderately better position than outright denialism. And I have noted your support of green energy, which is a commendable attitude which goes against the destructive agenda of its detractors.
I must point out that polling and climate science are hardly anything alike. The forces they study are fundamentally different, and the methods used to test and measure these forces are different too. You cannot take the mistakes of political science and use it to say that climate science is lacking too. That is apples to oranges, my friend.
Once again, you show hesitation in fully disowning the scientific consensus. You already called the scientists supporting it retards, so why not follow through on that? Do you still value their opinions, if only a little?
Although I can at least commend you on you now adopting a wait-and-see approach. That is a moderately better position than outright denialism. And I have noted your support of green energy, which is a commendable attitude which goes against the destructive agenda of its detractors.
I must point out that polling and climate science are hardly anything alike. The forces they study are fundamentally different, and the methods used to test and measure these forces are different too. You cannot take the mistakes of political science and use it to say that climate science is lacking too. That is apples to oranges, my friend.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Green !BEERiVqJJw joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,066
The Holocaust didn't happen? What the hell?
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,067
@739,065 (C)
> Do you still value their opinions, if only a little?
I value their data, I don't give a fuck about their opinion.
> Although I can at least commend you on you now adopting a wait-and-see approach. That is a moderately better position than outright denialism.
Point out one post where I deny the climate change (warming of the globe). I haven't denied anything in a single post, it was you retards who imply a lot of things.
As for "wait and see approach", that's just cold facts, we will know for sure when it all unfolds, in the meantime, I will still stand on the side of "IT'S NOT CAUSED BY MEN". Stop this madness and labeling and putting me into baskets I don't belong into, it's cheap and retarded and makes you look like an idiot.
> Do you still value their opinions, if only a little?
I value their data, I don't give a fuck about their opinion.
> Although I can at least commend you on you now adopting a wait-and-see approach. That is a moderately better position than outright denialism.
Point out one post where I deny the climate change (warming of the globe). I haven't denied anything in a single post, it was you retards who imply a lot of things.
As for "wait and see approach", that's just cold facts, we will know for sure when it all unfolds, in the meantime, I will still stand on the side of "IT'S NOT CAUSED BY MEN". Stop this madness and labeling and putting me into baskets I don't belong into, it's cheap and retarded and makes you look like an idiot.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 16 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,068
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Come on, Sheep, stop being half-hearted. As I said, the consensus is:
> The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.
While you do admit that climate change is occurring, what you're firmly in denial of is that humans play any significant role. 95% may not be the same as 100%, but it is enough that we can safely say that the much-studied consensus is very likely correct, and that the denialists have not found compelling counter-evidence.
Just be honest with yourself. You do not trust scientists, you do not see mainstream science as valid. Be brave, and admit you don't trust the experts.
Come on, Sheep, stop being half-hearted. As I said, the consensus is:
> The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.
While you do admit that climate change is occurring, what you're firmly in denial of is that humans play any significant role. 95% may not be the same as 100%, but it is enough that we can safely say that the much-studied consensus is very likely correct, and that the denialists have not found compelling counter-evidence.
Just be honest with yourself. You do not trust scientists, you do not see mainstream science as valid. Be brave, and admit you don't trust the experts.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 22 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,070
@previous (C)
If someone could show me how they calculated 95% I might trust that number a bit more. I've read and talked with enough people working in that field (been on a highly reputable German institution, during my trip to Karlsruhe for a digital signal processing related gig) and the people working on their PhDs act like you. Religious belief that 95% equals 100%. As I pointed out, there's a 321 page long study showing that human activity isn't likely to be the reason of the current warming. If you don't want to read the whole 321 pages, read the summary at least.
I could tell you the same you tell me:
> Just be honest with yourself. You do not trust scientists...
> Be brave, and admit you don't trust the experts.
You don't trust the following people:
> Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
> Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
> Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
> Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
> Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”
> Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
> Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”
etc. etc.
Nobel prize winners, NASA scientists, alternative energy experts, climatologists, space pioneers... complete plebeians compared to Anonymous C. Fucking plebeians...
If someone could show me how they calculated 95% I might trust that number a bit more. I've read and talked with enough people working in that field (been on a highly reputable German institution, during my trip to Karlsruhe for a digital signal processing related gig) and the people working on their PhDs act like you. Religious belief that 95% equals 100%. As I pointed out, there's a 321 page long study showing that human activity isn't likely to be the reason of the current warming. If you don't want to read the whole 321 pages, read the summary at least.
I could tell you the same you tell me:
> Just be honest with yourself. You do not trust scientists...
> Be brave, and admit you don't trust the experts.
You don't trust the following people:
> Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
> Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
> Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
> Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
> Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”
> Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
> Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”
etc. etc.
Nobel prize winners, NASA scientists, alternative energy experts, climatologists, space pioneers... complete plebeians compared to Anonymous C. Fucking plebeians...
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 11 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,072
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
> I pointed out, there's a 321 page long study showing that human activity isn't likely to be the reason of the current warming
As I already explained, I, a person who isn't trained in climate change, can trust that qualified scientists have already examined this paper, and not been convinced by it. If it's so great and convincing, why hasn't it changed this overwhelming consensus? Just tell me outright, why haven't mainstream scientists been swayed by this paper?
> You don't trust the following people:
For sake of argument, let's say I accept that all of those experts are fully qualified, and are acting in good faith. Even then, their opinion is far outweighed by the majority of their peers, who are just as qualified and just as trained to study Earth's climate.
Come on, Sheep, we keep coming back to this. You can't overturn a scientific consensus by wheeling out a minority of scientists, or a lone dissenting paper. Both have tried to overturn the viewpoint of mainstream science, and both have not changed the consensus.
You must think that mainstream science is corrupt, stupid, biased... It must be one of them. So no more hesitation, tell me why most scientists are wrong. Show some commitment.
> I pointed out, there's a 321 page long study showing that human activity isn't likely to be the reason of the current warming
As I already explained, I, a person who isn't trained in climate change, can trust that qualified scientists have already examined this paper, and not been convinced by it. If it's so great and convincing, why hasn't it changed this overwhelming consensus? Just tell me outright, why haven't mainstream scientists been swayed by this paper?
> You don't trust the following people:
For sake of argument, let's say I accept that all of those experts are fully qualified, and are acting in good faith. Even then, their opinion is far outweighed by the majority of their peers, who are just as qualified and just as trained to study Earth's climate.
Come on, Sheep, we keep coming back to this. You can't overturn a scientific consensus by wheeling out a minority of scientists, or a lone dissenting paper. Both have tried to overturn the viewpoint of mainstream science, and both have not changed the consensus.
You must think that mainstream science is corrupt, stupid, biased... It must be one of them. So no more hesitation, tell me why most scientists are wrong. Show some commitment.
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 9 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,073
@738,793 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Fake_anon, are you sure you want to equate The Holocaust with global warming? Everyone knows The Holocaust happened. That's why there's all these laws preventing anyone from questioning it. And global warming is a total hoax. They changed it to climate change because all the predictions have been wrong.
By the way I just Googled from this thread: Did the holocaust really happen?
And holy shit! I mean WTF?!?! I can't even sum it up.
By the way, all these environmentalists forcing Third World countries to build windmills instead of burning fossil fuels kills six million Africans every year. (Source about an hour in on this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s ) So it's a terrible Holocaust we lose so many 48 IQ Africans each year.
The global warming stuff is good though because it forces people to shut their loud cars up. A loud engine even from a small leafblower pollutes at the rate of thousands of cars though because of how bad its engine is--a two stroke engine that expels 2/3rds of its fuel unburnt into the atmosphere.
Fake_anon, are you sure you want to equate The Holocaust with global warming? Everyone knows The Holocaust happened. That's why there's all these laws preventing anyone from questioning it. And global warming is a total hoax. They changed it to climate change because all the predictions have been wrong.
By the way I just Googled from this thread: Did the holocaust really happen?
And holy shit! I mean WTF?!?! I can't even sum it up.
By the way, all these environmentalists forcing Third World countries to build windmills instead of burning fossil fuels kills six million Africans every year. (Source about an hour in on this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s ) So it's a terrible Holocaust we lose so many 48 IQ Africans each year.
The global warming stuff is good though because it forces people to shut their loud cars up. A loud engine even from a small leafblower pollutes at the rate of thousands of cars though because of how bad its engine is--a two stroke engine that expels 2/3rds of its fuel unburnt into the atmosphere.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 19 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,077
@739,072 (C)
Yes we keep coming back to it because you're pushing into that direction.
> Even then, their opinion is far outweighed by the majority of their peers
Can we start talking numbers and names? Who is this "majority", how many are there, got any names besides Michio Kaku?
> why hasn't it changed this overwhelming consensus
Chang is slowly happening and @739,064 (P) nailed why it's slow.
> mainstream scientists
You use the word "mainstream" as if it was a good thing.
> You must think that mainstream science is corrupt, stupid, biased... It must be one of them.
And here's again this implying game you've been playing this whole thread. What if it isn't any of what you say as "MUST BE". What if I told you I knew mainstream scientists are right, but I'm part of the oil cartel?
Then you might wonder why I'm into green tech? Perhaps even we, the oil cartel, figured we can't ride the fossil fuel wave forever, so we invest a ton of money into green tech, and want to see it adopted so we make some money back.
But why I would then deny climate change is caused by men? Wouldn't it be easier to push green tech if I fearmonger everyone into it?
Maybe I'm just trolling? Am I really from Slovenia? Can I even kickflip? Or tailwhip? Or flair a 13 foot vert ramp? And why did I just say 13 foot instead of 4 meters?
Or maybe I just prefer the truth, and if 95% is all you can give me, I will look into alternatives, do some research, talk with people and pick what I believe could be happening.
I did the same with many things. I question things, I'm driven by curiosity and passion to find the truth. And this shows in my projects as well. For my current startup, people told me "there's no way, there's no market for it" and I went for it. Got over 200k USD investment in the first round, and now negotiating 1.5-2M USD second round of capitalization.
If I listened to mainstream shitheads and took "the general consensus" as is I wouldn't be here where I am. But yeah, I am the idiot. If you labeling me an idiot is the price I need to pay for everything I achieved, then that's a price I'm willing to pay.
Yes we keep coming back to it because you're pushing into that direction.
> Even then, their opinion is far outweighed by the majority of their peers
Can we start talking numbers and names? Who is this "majority", how many are there, got any names besides Michio Kaku?
> why hasn't it changed this overwhelming consensus
Chang is slowly happening and @739,064 (P) nailed why it's slow.
> mainstream scientists
You use the word "mainstream" as if it was a good thing.
> You must think that mainstream science is corrupt, stupid, biased... It must be one of them.
And here's again this implying game you've been playing this whole thread. What if it isn't any of what you say as "MUST BE". What if I told you I knew mainstream scientists are right, but I'm part of the oil cartel?
Then you might wonder why I'm into green tech? Perhaps even we, the oil cartel, figured we can't ride the fossil fuel wave forever, so we invest a ton of money into green tech, and want to see it adopted so we make some money back.
But why I would then deny climate change is caused by men? Wouldn't it be easier to push green tech if I fearmonger everyone into it?
Maybe I'm just trolling? Am I really from Slovenia? Can I even kickflip? Or tailwhip? Or flair a 13 foot vert ramp? And why did I just say 13 foot instead of 4 meters?
Or maybe I just prefer the truth, and if 95% is all you can give me, I will look into alternatives, do some research, talk with people and pick what I believe could be happening.
I did the same with many things. I question things, I'm driven by curiosity and passion to find the truth. And this shows in my projects as well. For my current startup, people told me "there's no way, there's no market for it" and I went for it. Got over 200k USD investment in the first round, and now negotiating 1.5-2M USD second round of capitalization.
If I listened to mainstream shitheads and took "the general consensus" as is I wouldn't be here where I am. But yeah, I am the idiot. If you labeling me an idiot is the price I need to pay for everything I achieved, then that's a price I'm willing to pay.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 13 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,085
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
I already linked to evidence that it's the mainstream. There was a whole Wikipedia article about how no credible scientific group denies climate change. At most, a few of them sit on the fence.
As always, you haven't given a simple answer on why most scientists are allegedly wrong. Although your throwing in with Anonymous P's hand-waving of all scientists as close-minded and biased seems to confirm my suspicion. You don't like expert figures who disagree with you, so you just write them all off. Just like that.
> If I listened to mainstream shitheads and took "the general consensus" as is I wouldn't be here where I am.
Starting a successful business is nothing like studying the Earth's climate... You seem to struggle to understand how the climate is studied, as you've now compared it to both political science and business ventures. Completely separate disciplines that cannot serve as analogies.
I think my final judgement here is that, while you may be a bright young man overall, you are quite intellectually crippled by an attraction to fringe views and a distrust of learned experts. I hope that, someday, you can grow up and leave this dead-end mindset.
I already linked to evidence that it's the mainstream. There was a whole Wikipedia article about how no credible scientific group denies climate change. At most, a few of them sit on the fence.
As always, you haven't given a simple answer on why most scientists are allegedly wrong. Although your throwing in with Anonymous P's hand-waving of all scientists as close-minded and biased seems to confirm my suspicion. You don't like expert figures who disagree with you, so you just write them all off. Just like that.
> If I listened to mainstream shitheads and took "the general consensus" as is I wouldn't be here where I am.
Starting a successful business is nothing like studying the Earth's climate... You seem to struggle to understand how the climate is studied, as you've now compared it to both political science and business ventures. Completely separate disciplines that cannot serve as analogies.
I think my final judgement here is that, while you may be a bright young man overall, you are quite intellectually crippled by an attraction to fringe views and a distrust of learned experts. I hope that, someday, you can grow up and leave this dead-end mindset.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous R replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,087
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,088
@739,085 (C)
> I think my final judgement here is that, while you may be a bright young man overall,
that is kind of you
> I think my final judgement here is that, while you may be a bright young man overall,
that is kind of you
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,091
@739,085 (C)
Lol buddy, this post. Pure <3
> wikipedia
> expert figures
> brought to you by: most scientists ltd.
Everything you link hides behind institutions, companies and fuck what not. Give me some names of those experts and show me what they achieved besides agreeing with the "general consensus".
That much for the first part. The second part I won't even comment. Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying.
Lol buddy, this post. Pure <3
> wikipedia
> expert figures
> brought to you by: most scientists ltd.
Everything you link hides behind institutions, companies and fuck what not. Give me some names of those experts and show me what they achieved besides agreeing with the "general consensus".
That much for the first part. The second part I won't even comment. Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 16 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,095
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
I think we're done. You've made it crystal clear that you do not trust or accept a scientific consensus. You hold your preferred beliefs above the weight of evidence, and I think we both know that nothing I say or link you to will convince you to reconsider.
As I said, I just hope that one day you can grow out of this irrational mentality. It's holding you back.
@739,088 (beckyderp !yDoooooooo)
Well it's true. If what he's said is accurate, then he is a quite successful guy. But he still has some quite serious misconceptions about truth and evidence.
I think we're done. You've made it crystal clear that you do not trust or accept a scientific consensus. You hold your preferred beliefs above the weight of evidence, and I think we both know that nothing I say or link you to will convince you to reconsider.
As I said, I just hope that one day you can grow out of this irrational mentality. It's holding you back.
@739,088 (beckyderp !yDoooooooo)
Well it's true. If what he's said is accurate, then he is a quite successful guy. But he still has some quite serious misconceptions about truth and evidence.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,096
@previous (C)
I asked for concrete things because I have a hard time finding them (names, and their achievements) and you deny providing it.
You hide those scientists behind something you call >scientific consensus
Sure thing bud, thanks for all the evidence.
I asked for concrete things because I have a hard time finding them (names, and their achievements) and you deny providing it.
You hide those scientists behind something you call >scientific consensus
Sure thing bud, thanks for all the evidence.
Anonymous R replied with this 9 years ago, 14 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,102
@739,095 (C)
Yeah Matt practices spirit cooking in Kunming China all the time.
Yeah Matt practices spirit cooking in Kunming China all the time.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
dw replied with this 9 years ago, 18 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #739,105
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,127
Anonymous I replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,130
@previous (beckyderp !yDoooooooo)
I think he's just noting how much more dumb and cucky KL seems when he goes on these long considered debates with an imbecile.
I think he's just noting how much more dumb and cucky KL seems when he goes on these long considered debates with an imbecile.
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,133
dw replied with this 9 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,134
@739,127 (beckyderp !yDoooooooo)
i do but i do not believe in the way kl is discussing in this draad.
i do but i do not believe in the way kl is discussing in this draad.
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,135
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,137
@739,105 (dw)
@739,134 (dw)
Yes, I was very rude and obnoxious, I admit that. But I doubted from the start that TheSheep would place any stock in mainstream scientific opinion, and course of this debate confirmed that. And the Holocaust denial did not improve my opinion either.
I would be more civil if I believed that the person I was speaking to was more reasonable. But I knew this would go nowhere, so might as well have some fun with it.
@739,134 (dw)
Yes, I was very rude and obnoxious, I admit that. But I doubted from the start that TheSheep would place any stock in mainstream scientific opinion, and course of this debate confirmed that. And the Holocaust denial did not improve my opinion either.
I would be more civil if I believed that the person I was speaking to was more reasonable. But I knew this would go nowhere, so might as well have some fun with it.
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,144
Anonymous I replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,146
@739,133 (beckyderp !yDoooooooo)
I have only and will only use that word when referring to a certain lad from Cornwall with a fondness for the blackest of bulls.
I have only and will only use that word when referring to a certain lad from Cornwall with a fondness for the blackest of bulls.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,158
@739,137 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Holocaust denial
Never denied it, neither ITT nor on IRC. To put it in something you'll understand, kys.
> Holocaust denial
Never denied it, neither ITT nor on IRC. To put it in something you'll understand, kys.
dw replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,161
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,163
@previous (dw)
That's not really what I was saying, and I think you know that.
Science relies upon testing and refining theories, of course. But there does come a point where a theory is so well-proven and supported that rejecting it amounts to rejecting good, hard evidence.
The issue here is that this theory has been studied extensively, and those studying it have reached a widespread agreement that human activity is indeed having a large impact on climate change. There are dissenting researchers, but they are in the vast minority and put forward arguments that have been, as far as I know, discredited.
That's not really what I was saying, and I think you know that.
Science relies upon testing and refining theories, of course. But there does come a point where a theory is so well-proven and supported that rejecting it amounts to rejecting good, hard evidence.
The issue here is that this theory has been studied extensively, and those studying it have reached a widespread agreement that human activity is indeed having a large impact on climate change. There are dissenting researchers, but they are in the vast minority and put forward arguments that have been, as far as I know, discredited.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,164
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> and put forward arguments that have been, as far as I know, discredited.
Could you provide some of those? And the names of the scientists who discredited them?
Again, I have a hard time finding people, it's just publications hiding behind institutions and general names like "group of scientists" shit.
Thank S.
> and put forward arguments that have been, as far as I know, discredited.
Could you provide some of those? And the names of the scientists who discredited them?
Again, I have a hard time finding people, it's just publications hiding behind institutions and general names like "group of scientists" shit.
Thank S.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,175
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
I don't see any point. I've already pointed out that no scientific organisation disagrees that it's man-made. The fact that you think nothing of that says a lot.
I could take some time to list scientists that agree humans are having an impact, but I know you'll just cite the dissenting ones you listed earlier and say "Ah-ha! Not all of them agree!"
It's just like when I used to argue with kook about transgenders. It doesn't matter how many experts or scientific papers I cite, if the other person doesn't want to accept the facts then they simply won't. Or at least not if it's an internet argument, anyway.
I don't see any point. I've already pointed out that no scientific organisation disagrees that it's man-made. The fact that you think nothing of that says a lot.
I could take some time to list scientists that agree humans are having an impact, but I know you'll just cite the dissenting ones you listed earlier and say "Ah-ha! Not all of them agree!"
It's just like when I used to argue with kook about transgenders. It doesn't matter how many experts or scientific papers I cite, if the other person doesn't want to accept the facts then they simply won't. Or at least not if it's an internet argument, anyway.
(Edited 10 minutes later.)
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,178
100 get
bu replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,180
@739,175 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
but you didn't spend 10 minutes googling names u don't know to probe me wrong when I demanded u to! that means I win and global warming is a hoax. ha ha DUMBASS libtard
lol why u doing this
but you didn't spend 10 minutes googling names u don't know to probe me wrong when I demanded u to! that means I win and global warming is a hoax. ha ha DUMBASS libtard
lol why u doing this
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,182
@739,175 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> I've already pointed out that no scientific organisation disagrees that it's man-made
But that is a lie tho, as I've shown multiple times ITT. And based on this lie you build up every other "fact" ITT.
So yeah, thanks. Thanks for nothing.
> I've already pointed out that no scientific organisation disagrees that it's man-made
But that is a lie tho, as I've shown multiple times ITT. And based on this lie you build up every other "fact" ITT.
So yeah, thanks. Thanks for nothing.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,185
@739,178 (beckyderp !yDoooooooo)This was your plan all along, wasn't it?
@739,180 (bu)
> lol why u doing this
Arguing about something on Minichan can be fun, and sometimes a surprisingly decent way to learn about something.
If I ever talk to someone else who wants to talk about global warming, I am now slightly more able to discuss it with them. That's something.
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 9 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,193
Global warming is a myth.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,195
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,197
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
You know that the north and south pole weren't frozen when the earth first formed right? They got to melt again sometime.
You know that the north and south pole weren't frozen when the earth first formed right? They got to melt again sometime.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,198
@previous (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
The Poles weren't even around when Earth formed, m8. I know that some of our countrymen have developed a fear of the Poles, but I do not think they are so powerful that they pre-date the Earth.
God, man, what would Jeremy Corbyn say about all of this??
The Poles weren't even around when Earth formed, m8. I know that some of our countrymen have developed a fear of the Poles, but I do not think they are so powerful that they pre-date the Earth.
God, man, what would Jeremy Corbyn say about all of this??
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,200
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,201
@739,185 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Eh I see you really ended this one. So I'll provide some of the info I asked you to provide.
Over the years I've seen "97%" quite often, but the way they came to 97% is rather funny.
They took all dem papers about what caused global warming, and found that 3% of them say "it's not man made" so they concluded: 97% of the papers say it's man made (if they let me, I would love to name this scientific method, the KL method).
If you actually read the papers (some people did to get a better insight into those numbers) you'll find: 24% of the papers say "lol, it's normal cycle, humans have minimal to none impact", 17% believe it's both, natural change that has been enhanced by humans, 10% say it could be both, human cause and natural, the data we have can not be used to reach a 100% conclusion as to whom is to blame...
From the last unbiased research done on research, the numbers of scientists who are skeptical to belief that it's man made is anywhere between 35-40%...
Now some info for bonus arguing: the ice cap on Antarctica is growing in size, and no one knows why.
And with all that, I'm done with arguing here. I really wanted to bait you and get you to write "97%" but I guess you got that one. Cheers mate!
Eh I see you really ended this one. So I'll provide some of the info I asked you to provide.
Over the years I've seen "97%" quite often, but the way they came to 97% is rather funny.
They took all dem papers about what caused global warming, and found that 3% of them say "it's not man made" so they concluded: 97% of the papers say it's man made (if they let me, I would love to name this scientific method, the KL method).
If you actually read the papers (some people did to get a better insight into those numbers) you'll find: 24% of the papers say "lol, it's normal cycle, humans have minimal to none impact", 17% believe it's both, natural change that has been enhanced by humans, 10% say it could be both, human cause and natural, the data we have can not be used to reach a 100% conclusion as to whom is to blame...
From the last unbiased research done on research, the numbers of scientists who are skeptical to belief that it's man made is anywhere between 35-40%...
Now some info for bonus arguing: the ice cap on Antarctica is growing in size, and no one knows why.
And with all that, I'm done with arguing here. I really wanted to bait you and get you to write "97%" but I guess you got that one. Cheers mate!
Anonymous I replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,203
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
ITT: a skate bum gets angry and pretends to cite papers he can't read
ITT: a skate bum gets angry and pretends to cite papers he can't read
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 9 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,220
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,221
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,223
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Didn't scientists say that farting cows cause more damage to the ozone layer than cars?
Didn't scientists say that farting cows cause more damage to the ozone layer than cars?
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,240
@previous (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
Pretty much, you got the terminology wrong tho, it's cowfarts(tm) (pronounced as one word).
Pretty much, you got the terminology wrong tho, it's cowfarts(tm) (pronounced as one word).
Anonymous P replied with this 9 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,397
@739,185 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
What are your thoughts on my post here? @739,064 (P)
Do you agree or disagree with my opinion on scientists being regular fallible people who have their own best interests at heart? Are you aware how hard the push back is against new ideas? Gobekli Tepe is a very good example. The evidence is clear and there is carbon dating to back up the dates. Still, if you were to go around saying that perhaps there was a civilization capable of building structures like that 12,000 years ago 95% of scientists would call you out for being an anti-climate change holocaust denier who knows nothing about the currently accepted model of human civilization evolution.
What are your thoughts on my post here? @739,064 (P)
Do you agree or disagree with my opinion on scientists being regular fallible people who have their own best interests at heart? Are you aware how hard the push back is against new ideas? Gobekli Tepe is a very good example. The evidence is clear and there is carbon dating to back up the dates. Still, if you were to go around saying that perhaps there was a civilization capable of building structures like that 12,000 years ago 95% of scientists would call you out for being an anti-climate change holocaust denier who knows nothing about the currently accepted model of human civilization evolution.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,406
@previous (P)
While I don't disagree that scientists or groups of scientists can be fallible, I still do not see their overall stance on climate change as incorrect. As I have said, the issue has been studied extensively, and the counter-arguments refuted. Standing on its own, the issue seems neatly wrapped up to me.
Even if, for sake of argument, I agree that the scientific and historian communities are incorrect about this historical civilisation you describe, I would not see that as reason to go around doubting each and every scientific consensus that exists. Rather, I would look to judge each case on its own merit.
Whilst there is such a thing as trusting too much, there is also such a thing as distrusting too much.
While I don't disagree that scientists or groups of scientists can be fallible, I still do not see their overall stance on climate change as incorrect. As I have said, the issue has been studied extensively, and the counter-arguments refuted. Standing on its own, the issue seems neatly wrapped up to me.
Even if, for sake of argument, I agree that the scientific and historian communities are incorrect about this historical civilisation you describe, I would not see that as reason to go around doubting each and every scientific consensus that exists. Rather, I would look to judge each case on its own merit.
Whilst there is such a thing as trusting too much, there is also such a thing as distrusting too much.
Anonymous P replied with this 9 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,407
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
If you were a massive proponent of climate change science, a leader in the field, world renowned and absolute in your beliefs but then someone showed you something different, how would you react? Completely unbiased?
If you were a massive proponent of climate change science, a leader in the field, world renowned and absolute in your beliefs but then someone showed you something different, how would you react? Completely unbiased?
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,408
im not a trump supporter lol
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,410
@739,407 (P)
See, I don't think your point of "scientists are inherently biased, we should always doubt them" is something I cannot agree with. The course of scientific development has been rife with newer theories being proven and overturning established theories, so the whole point of "scientists cannot accept dissenting theories" is inherently incorrect. Indeed, the scientific method is meant to test a hypothesis and place objective measurements and data above personal opinion.
As I said, I'm not saying scientists are infalliable, but I find them more trustworthy than not. And in the specific case of climate change, the evidence seems quite solid.
See, I don't think your point of "scientists are inherently biased, we should always doubt them" is something I cannot agree with. The course of scientific development has been rife with newer theories being proven and overturning established theories, so the whole point of "scientists cannot accept dissenting theories" is inherently incorrect. Indeed, the scientific method is meant to test a hypothesis and place objective measurements and data above personal opinion.
As I said, I'm not saying scientists are infalliable, but I find them more trustworthy than not. And in the specific case of climate change, the evidence seems quite solid.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,412
@739,185 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Two things bug me about this: first the emphasis on how many scientists believe it because the number or percentage of people who believe something has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. Here in America something like 89% of the population believes in God to some extent but I think 89% of Americans are wrong.
The Qwerty keyboard may or may not be the best layout but saying "You're calling 99.9% of keyboard manufacturers stupid?" and "The science is settled!" are not very good arguments against Dvorak imho.
The second thing is the emphasis on the science being "settled". This bothers me because science is always advancing and things could be different in the future.
Two things bug me about this: first the emphasis on how many scientists believe it because the number or percentage of people who believe something has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. Here in America something like 89% of the population believes in God to some extent but I think 89% of Americans are wrong.
The Qwerty keyboard may or may not be the best layout but saying "You're calling 99.9% of keyboard manufacturers stupid?" and "The science is settled!" are not very good arguments against Dvorak imho.
The second thing is the emphasis on the science being "settled". This bothers me because science is always advancing and things could be different in the future.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,413
@previous (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
In response to your first point, I say: I am not arguing on the weight of opinion. I am arguing on the weight of expert opinion. Important difference. When considering and issue of physics, I would trust the consensus of the relevant scientists over a consensus of the general population, as those scientists are educated professionals who know and have studied the field.
To your second point, I say: the matter is not settled. As we know, the consensus on climate change is still being pushed against, challenged and discussed. It is simply that none of these challenged have yet withstood scientific inquiry. As I noted earlier, there does come a point where opposition to an idea becomes less credible. There is a difference between opposing a developing idea like human colour perception and an established idea like biophilia. So they are free to challenge and test the consensus, but it seems to me that much of this opposition is misinformed or incorrect.
In response to your first point, I say: I am not arguing on the weight of opinion. I am arguing on the weight of expert opinion. Important difference. When considering and issue of physics, I would trust the consensus of the relevant scientists over a consensus of the general population, as those scientists are educated professionals who know and have studied the field.
To your second point, I say: the matter is not settled. As we know, the consensus on climate change is still being pushed against, challenged and discussed. It is simply that none of these challenged have yet withstood scientific inquiry. As I noted earlier, there does come a point where opposition to an idea becomes less credible. There is a difference between opposing a developing idea like human colour perception and an established idea like biophilia. So they are free to challenge and test the consensus, but it seems to me that much of this opposition is misinformed or incorrect.
Anonymous J replied with this 9 years ago, 51 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,416
@739,412 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
Your examples here all deal with public opinion, not scientists gathering data and testing hypotheses. If one research team comes to some conclusion after testing a theory by gathering data and testing it against the assumptions of their theory, then that is interesting. If their results are corroborated by several other independent research teams, then the theory becomes a lot more solid because it makes predictions about the world that can be replicated over and over. So yes, numbers matter here. And again, this isn't a public opinion poll about liking Jello Pudding Pops. We aren't just asking scientists what they think. We're talking about trained scientists testing hypotheses by actually gathering data and doing research.
Yes, things probably will look a bit different in the future once we know more. We'll probably fine tune the theories we have or change some parts to account for new data. That doesn't mean the current conclusions are going to be thrown out the window, nor does it mean we should just say "things might change" and put our heads in the sand.
Your examples here all deal with public opinion, not scientists gathering data and testing hypotheses. If one research team comes to some conclusion after testing a theory by gathering data and testing it against the assumptions of their theory, then that is interesting. If their results are corroborated by several other independent research teams, then the theory becomes a lot more solid because it makes predictions about the world that can be replicated over and over. So yes, numbers matter here. And again, this isn't a public opinion poll about liking Jello Pudding Pops. We aren't just asking scientists what they think. We're talking about trained scientists testing hypotheses by actually gathering data and doing research.
Yes, things probably will look a bit different in the future once we know more. We'll probably fine tune the theories we have or change some parts to account for new data. That doesn't mean the current conclusions are going to be thrown out the window, nor does it mean we should just say "things might change" and put our heads in the sand.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,417
@739,410 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> And in the specific case of climate change, the evidence seems quite solid.
Evidence so solid that you have to push fraud 97% consensus to prove your point. And let's ignore the fact that humans contribute with less than 1% of global CO2 production.
But yes, the "supermajority of expert scientists" agree and have reached consensus. You sound like a broken record mate.
> And in the specific case of climate change, the evidence seems quite solid.
Evidence so solid that you have to push fraud 97% consensus to prove your point. And let's ignore the fact that humans contribute with less than 1% of global CO2 production.
But yes, the "supermajority of expert scientists" agree and have reached consensus. You sound like a broken record mate.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,422
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
While humans do produce a tiny amount of CO2, my understanding is the problem is that this amount is upsetting the balance. Whereas the natural CO2 amounts got to a point where it was balanced and naturally dissipating, the human contribution is now upsetting the balance and overwhelming the natural rate of CO2 removal. Basic explanation, but that's what is reportedly happening.
This is what I meant about scientists having already refuted these misguided counter-points to global warming. But now you simply deny that there is even a consensus at all.
As I said before, I don't think anything I say will make you see the flaw in your reasoning, here... You have already expressed a hostility to even following a mainstream opinion, and went so far as to call the scientists "retards". Just... Damn, your thinking process here is quite off-base. I don't think I can really help you, it's just a shame to see.
While humans do produce a tiny amount of CO2, my understanding is the problem is that this amount is upsetting the balance. Whereas the natural CO2 amounts got to a point where it was balanced and naturally dissipating, the human contribution is now upsetting the balance and overwhelming the natural rate of CO2 removal. Basic explanation, but that's what is reportedly happening.
This is what I meant about scientists having already refuted these misguided counter-points to global warming. But now you simply deny that there is even a consensus at all.
As I said before, I don't think anything I say will make you see the flaw in your reasoning, here... You have already expressed a hostility to even following a mainstream opinion, and went so far as to call the scientists "retards". Just... Damn, your thinking process here is quite off-base. I don't think I can really help you, it's just a shame to see.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,423
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> I don't think anything I say will make you see the flaw in your reasoning
This goes right back at you. I've shown you how your "there's a supermajority who agrees" is flawed as pointed out in @739,201 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
I can even put names and quotes from scientists who were included in the 97% saying "lol whatthefuck, that's not what my paper says".
But you have already expressed a hostility to accept any of this. Just... Damn, your thinking process here is quite off-base. I don't think I can really help you, it's just a shame to see.
> I don't think anything I say will make you see the flaw in your reasoning
This goes right back at you. I've shown you how your "there's a supermajority who agrees" is flawed as pointed out in @739,201 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
I can even put names and quotes from scientists who were included in the 97% saying "lol whatthefuck, that's not what my paper says".
But you have already expressed a hostility to accept any of this. Just... Damn, your thinking process here is quite off-base. I don't think I can really help you, it's just a shame to see.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,443
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
I mean you're not doing a whole lot better. You cited zero actual supporting information in that post, and the only link I've seen you provide to anything big was a 300 page document that was at least 150 pages of duplicate information, with a couple hundred signatures of scientists who were not climatologists commenting on an issue they have not studied professionally.
Also you want to dig up dead Jews because it would make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to get "the truth".
I mean you're not doing a whole lot better. You cited zero actual supporting information in that post, and the only link I've seen you provide to anything big was a 300 page document that was at least 150 pages of duplicate information, with a couple hundred signatures of scientists who were not climatologists commenting on an issue they have not studied professionally.
Also you want to dig up dead Jews because it would make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to get "the truth".
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #739,445
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)I want to dig up dead jews to find the truth yes. Is it so strange to you that I, even at mid 20s didn't lose my curiosity and that I'm stil driven by it? That I want to seek knowledge just for the sake of educating myself? Learning what truly happened in hope of figuring out why it happened, to educate others in hope we can prevent the shitty things we learn and motivate with the good bits?
And I can't do any of it if all my "truth" is based on a lie. For example, the truth in this picture won't be denied by anyone, that's how it happened, documented facts.
But if I ask why all of a sudden the number was reduced from 4M+ to 1M all I will get is "OMG FUCKING NAZI, DOES IT REALLY MATTER, DO YOU HATE JEWS OR SOMETHING?"
But if it doesn't matter, why change it in the first place? And with the denial of proper ground surveys, why should I take this new number now for granted?
And that's just one of many questions I'll never have answered, yet you expect me to believe every word you say, asking me what I would do if you denied Jasenovac... pathetic.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 40 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #739,447
@739,443 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> a couple hundred signatures of scientists who were not climatologists commenting on an issue they have not studied professionally.
I'm not surprised. So much obfusticating bullshit on this issue.
> a couple hundred signatures of scientists who were not climatologists commenting on an issue they have not studied professionally.
I'm not surprised. So much obfusticating bullshit on this issue.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw replied with this 9 years ago, 45 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #739,461
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> So much obfusticating bullshit on this issue.
Yes, on both sides, but you'll acknowledge just one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#52c0210f5909
Maybe your beloved MSM can pound some sense into your head.
And ignore @739,445 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw) obviously just fabrications and me being stupid asking stupid questions not being able to see things for what they are, or something like that (see I'm learning).
> So much obfusticating bullshit on this issue.
Yes, on both sides, but you'll acknowledge just one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#52c0210f5909
Maybe your beloved MSM can pound some sense into your head.
And ignore @739,445 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw) obviously just fabrications and me being stupid asking stupid questions not being able to see things for what they are, or something like that (see I'm learning).