Topic: Extinction Rebellion are a cult.
Green !StaYqkzUPc started this discussion 6 years ago #92,317
They remind me of the old Christian doomsayers.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later[^] [v] #1,047,950
@OP
Why do you want our children's futures to be destroyed by the climate change we're causing?
Why do you want our children's futures to be destroyed by the climate change we're causing?
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,951
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,952
> old Christian doomsayers
LOL Which ones? They've been saying this for close to two thousand years now.
LOL Which ones? They've been saying this for close to two thousand years now.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,953
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,955
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,957
@1,047,951 (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
The only people who claim it's a myth are those who stand to gain financially from denying it. But no, you're right, it's far more likely to be a hoax. After all, there is no way billionaires who rely on fossil fuels for their fortunes, or those in their pockets, would ever lie to me...
The only people who claim it's a myth are those who stand to gain financially from denying it. But no, you're right, it's far more likely to be a hoax. After all, there is no way billionaires who rely on fossil fuels for their fortunes, or those in their pockets, would ever lie to me...
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,987
@1,047,953 (B)
> Climate change isn't a myth. The science is settled.
Climate change per se is not a myth, but the science certainly is not settled when it comes to what degree, if any, humans are the cause.
> Climate change isn't a myth. The science is settled.
Climate change per se is not a myth, but the science certainly is not settled when it comes to what degree, if any, humans are the cause.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,988
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,991
@previous (B)
Citation(s) needed. Thanks. In b4 you tell me "97% of sinetiss agree".
Citation(s) needed. Thanks. In b4 you tell me "97% of sinetiss agree".
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,992
@previous (E)
I don't know how to explain the science in a way that would be simple enough for you to understand, but you can rest assured that it's settled.
I don't know how to explain the science in a way that would be simple enough for you to understand, but you can rest assured that it's settled.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,994
@previous (B)
So you can't provide any citations? OK, here's some reading material for you. Let's chat again when you've read and understood it:
http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/19/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-19.pdf
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/category/consensus/
So you can't provide any citations? OK, here's some reading material for you. Let's chat again when you've read and understood it:
http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/19/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-19.pdf
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/category/consensus/
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,995
@previous (E)
I'm not going to waste my time reading any of that pseudoscientific waffle. Find a source that isn't an unaccredited fake "journal" or a right wing conspiracy website. Thanks.
I'm not going to waste my time reading any of that pseudoscientific waffle. Find a source that isn't an unaccredited fake "journal" or a right wing conspiracy website. Thanks.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,996
@previous (B)
> I'm not going to waste my time reading any of that pseudoscientific waffle. Find a source that isn't an unaccredited fake "journal" or a right wing conspiracy website. Thanks.
Lol. How typical. You don't like what the empirical evidence says, so you're just going squeeze your eyes tight shut, cover your ears and sing lalala it's all a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory. Oh well. I tried. Carry on believing the Chicken Licken sky is falling dogma that's being pushed on you then. Thanks.
> I'm not going to waste my time reading any of that pseudoscientific waffle. Find a source that isn't an unaccredited fake "journal" or a right wing conspiracy website. Thanks.
Lol. How typical. You don't like what the empirical evidence says, so you're just going squeeze your eyes tight shut, cover your ears and sing lalala it's all a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory. Oh well. I tried. Carry on believing the Chicken Licken sky is falling dogma that's being pushed on you then. Thanks.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,998
@previous (E)
Our children will never forgive us if we don't stop the climate change we're causing. Why do you want your children to hate you?
Our children will never forgive us if we don't stop the climate change we're causing. Why do you want your children to hate you?
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,012
Hyperlink !!2MPWksMg1 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,030
Don't go through the rockies in winter, turn back now!
Ananthanarayanan M R joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 30 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,042
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,046
@previous (Ananthanarayanan M R)
It's actually a pretty fucking sad story.
It stands for the Open Peer Review Journal. It's not really a journal or peer reviewed. I have no idea if it's open because no one has actually updated the site since 2014. The only posts there are a handful of "studies" all from a father/son duo, Michael and Ronan Connolly. (who also run globalwarmingsolved.com)
I guess if climate deniers can't do enough real science to get past peer review, they just start a fake journal so that they can make official looking references to their own "research" on their own website.
It's actually a pretty fucking sad story.
It stands for the Open Peer Review Journal. It's not really a journal or peer reviewed. I have no idea if it's open because no one has actually updated the site since 2014. The only posts there are a handful of "studies" all from a father/son duo, Michael and Ronan Connolly. (who also run globalwarmingsolved.com)
I guess if climate deniers can't do enough real science to get past peer review, they just start a fake journal so that they can make official looking references to their own "research" on their own website.
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,048
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,051
@1,048,046 (C)
There's a long list of plenty of other scientific theories that started off being met by the same sneering criticism. Continental drift is a good example. This data looks a lot better than most.
There's a long list of plenty of other scientific theories that started off being met by the same sneering criticism. Continental drift is a good example. This data looks a lot better than most.
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 31 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,052
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,053
@previous (Ananthanarayanan M R)
Somebody (prob anon E) posted a decent summary here: https://minichan.org/topic/91850#reply_1044475
Somebody (prob anon E) posted a decent summary here: https://minichan.org/topic/91850#reply_1044475
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,058
Their own cult symbol: check.Their own prophet: Greta Thunberg, check.
Saying we're all going to die soon unless we change our lifestyle: double check.
Sounding like they've been brainwashed: check.
Sounds like a cult to me.
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 19 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,064
@previous (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
I mean it won't affect us directly for like a century so might as well ignore that it's happening right
I mean it won't affect us directly for like a century so might as well ignore that it's happening right
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,065
@1,048,048 (Ananthanarayanan M R)
Don't just take this ignoramus's word for it. Look at this recent video for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY&t=202s and others, give the weather balloon data a chance to speak for itself, and then form your own opinion. In about 10 years' time, if the world isn't undergoing a catastrophe caused by climate change and all these global warming alarmists don't end up looking like idiots (again), I'll dox myself and post a video where I apologise to Anon C.
Don't just take this ignoramus's word for it. Look at this recent video for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY&t=202s and others, give the weather balloon data a chance to speak for itself, and then form your own opinion. In about 10 years' time, if the world isn't undergoing a catastrophe caused by climate change and all these global warming alarmists don't end up looking like idiots (again), I'll dox myself and post a video where I apologise to Anon C.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,067
@1,048,012 (jodi !ariasXXmaE)
Who's dumb enough to get pregnant with kids they didn't plan for and then murder them is a better question.
Millions.
Who's dumb enough to get pregnant with kids they didn't plan for and then murder them is a better question.
Millions.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 46 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,076
@1,048,065 (E)
im actually not taking his word I'm taking the consensus of the world's scientific community
im actually not taking his word I'm taking the consensus of the world's scientific community
jodi !ariasXXmaE replied with this 6 years ago, 48 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,077
@1,048,067 (J)
> Who's dumb enough to get pregnant with kids they didn't plan for and then murder them is a better question.
>
>
> Millions.
shut up retard
> Who's dumb enough to get pregnant with kids they didn't plan for and then murder them is a better question.
>
>
> Millions.
shut up retard
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 27 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,100
@1,048,076 (Ananthanarayanan M R)
> I'm taking the consensus of the world's scientific community
OK. What makes you think there's a consensus? I really would like to know. I am trying to point out that there is far less of a consensus than the news media or the IPCC would have you believe.
I was honestly hoping that somebody would point me to a properly formulated scientific paper, with actual weather balloon or other empirical data which corroborates the IPCC's report. In science, evidence rules, not opinions. As Richards Feynman said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
I am willing to change my mind, but so far I have not come across a better and more thorough study on all this than what those Connollys have done.
> I'm taking the consensus of the world's scientific community
OK. What makes you think there's a consensus? I really would like to know. I am trying to point out that there is far less of a consensus than the news media or the IPCC would have you believe.
I was honestly hoping that somebody would point me to a properly formulated scientific paper, with actual weather balloon or other empirical data which corroborates the IPCC's report. In science, evidence rules, not opinions. As Richards Feynman said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
I am willing to change my mind, but so far I have not come across a better and more thorough study on all this than what those Connollys have done.
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,101
@1,048,058 (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
> Their own prophet: Greta Thunberg, check.
You say this as though she's the first person to ever come out and say these things. She's only repeating what the vast majority of climate studies have been saying for a long time.
> Their own prophet: Greta Thunberg, check.
You say this as though she's the first person to ever come out and say these things. She's only repeating what the vast majority of climate studies have been saying for a long time.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,105
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,107
@1,048,100 (E)
try your luck in the reference section of the many wikipedia articles about the subject
try your luck in the reference section of the many wikipedia articles about the subject
(Edited 7 seconds later.)
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,113
@1,048,105 (E)
Here is an actual study on the consensus of climate scientists, with sources and references galore:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Taken from NASA's website, this page gives plenty of references for you to look into:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Here is an actual study on the consensus of climate scientists, with sources and references galore:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Taken from NASA's website, this page gives plenty of references for you to look into:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,164
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,333
@1,048,051 (I)
> There's a long list of plenty of other scientific theories that started off being met by the same sneering criticism. Continental drift is a good example.
And there are countless scientific ideas that end up in the waste bin of history. Reading about ideas like a luminiferous aether, phlogiston, bodily humors, expanding earth theory, aquatic ape theory, orgone energy, abiogenic petroleum, or the miasma theory of disease is fascinating because we get to hear some of the creative explanations people tried to come up with to explain the world.
Unfortunately, just having people criticize your ideas isn't evidence that you're correct.
> This data looks a lot better than most.
LOL There's no new data there. It's just climate denial. The Connollys over at oprj.net and globalwarmingsolved.com are just fitting different models to old data sets. Some of it is fun if you're into regression and the statistical assumptions behind principal component analysis.
The paper cited by Anon E is a long explanation about how models of the planet's atmosphere are wrong and current warming trends are due to the sun. In order to accomplish this, they have to make up a new method of heat transfer called "pervection" and then imagine it happening just so in order for their interpretation of the data to make sense. The idea that warming trends are due to solar variation or sunspot cycles isn't new, and you can find plenty of information about it from actual researchers.
I don't know how their claim that warming trends are due to solar variation fits in with their other papers about how warming trends aren't really warming trends. It all smacks of throwing a lot of claims out in order to see what people are willing to believe.
> There's a long list of plenty of other scientific theories that started off being met by the same sneering criticism. Continental drift is a good example.
And there are countless scientific ideas that end up in the waste bin of history. Reading about ideas like a luminiferous aether, phlogiston, bodily humors, expanding earth theory, aquatic ape theory, orgone energy, abiogenic petroleum, or the miasma theory of disease is fascinating because we get to hear some of the creative explanations people tried to come up with to explain the world.
Unfortunately, just having people criticize your ideas isn't evidence that you're correct.
> This data looks a lot better than most.
LOL There's no new data there. It's just climate denial. The Connollys over at oprj.net and globalwarmingsolved.com are just fitting different models to old data sets. Some of it is fun if you're into regression and the statistical assumptions behind principal component analysis.
The paper cited by Anon E is a long explanation about how models of the planet's atmosphere are wrong and current warming trends are due to the sun. In order to accomplish this, they have to make up a new method of heat transfer called "pervection" and then imagine it happening just so in order for their interpretation of the data to make sense. The idea that warming trends are due to solar variation or sunspot cycles isn't new, and you can find plenty of information about it from actual researchers.
I don't know how their claim that warming trends are due to solar variation fits in with their other papers about how warming trends aren't really warming trends. It all smacks of throwing a lot of claims out in order to see what people are willing to believe.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,364
There hasn't been a single correct prediction by global warmists yet. They are wrong. Thanks
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,399
@1,048,333 (C)
This is an opinion I can respect because, unlike Anon B, at least you've taken the trouble to read and understand the gist of the Connollys' hypotheses. Thanks.
Would you agree at least that we can add Al Gore's version of global warming theory (which also caused mass hysteria at the time) to that list of phony scientific ideas?
This is an opinion I can respect because, unlike Anon B, at least you've taken the trouble to read and understand the gist of the Connollys' hypotheses. Thanks.
Would you agree at least that we can add Al Gore's version of global warming theory (which also caused mass hysteria at the time) to that list of phony scientific ideas?
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,612
@previous (E)
Al Gore isn't a theorist. He puts out books and documentaries about a wide range scientific ideas and their intersection with geopolitics. If he had a theory, then I'd be interested. But he mostly just tries to communicate the science behind anthropogenic climate change to the public.
Al Gore isn't a theorist. He puts out books and documentaries about a wide range scientific ideas and their intersection with geopolitics. If he had a theory, then I'd be interested. But he mostly just tries to communicate the science behind anthropogenic climate change to the public.
q. joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 18 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,849
Anonymous K replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,889
@previous (q.)
A regular weather event. Did you also get upset about "the Amazon is burning because of global warming" hoax?
A regular weather event. Did you also get upset about "the Amazon is burning because of global warming" hoax?