One Of The Biggest Icebergs Has Broken Loose In Antarctica

Post Reply New Topic

HAHAHAHAHA

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions



Face it. The science behind global warming is settled. It's time for action. We shouldn't do nothing just because some people "still have doubts".

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/fil ... 0-2017.pdf

"Just asking questions (JAQ-ing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable"

Where have I made wild accusations about climate change? That's the second time you've misapplied one of those and I had to point out your error.



What action are you planning on taking?

Religions and movements usually try to discourage people from being a "doubting thomas".

"What action are you planning on taking?"
I plan to awaken the masses so that we can seize the means of production.

By the way, check out this.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

How do you plan on accomplishing that?

The difference here is that religion is garbage whereas global warming is a scientifically verified fact.

Did you decide to skip my question?

Like they did back in 1917 in Russia. Hey, I'm an old-style Bolshie myself, so I'm with you on that. I don't think that such action will lead to any reduction in CO2 emissions though; just the opposite, in fact. After the revolution the USSR underwent rapid industrialisation, and this led to a dramatic increase in all its associated benefits (like the aforementioned increase in CO2).

Look, global warming is a myth. That's just a fact. The Earth isn't getting warmer; in fact, it's getting colder, because a new Ice Age is on the way.

Define "religion".

Your "critique" doesn't really say much at all. I already knew about the complaint made by Carl Wunch, and how he was allegedly misrepresented. Whilst the original documentary may have been subsequently altered due to, among other things, this specific issue, the claims that are made within the final version are what interest me, and those who were interviewed and had their observations and comments retained, have not complained about "misleading editing"; on the contrary, they have stood by their claims.

Exactly, and if we use this attribute to help us define what the term "religion" means in the first place, we can clearly see that anyone who has the audacity to simply question the dogma of global-warming alarmism is branded a "heretic", and shunned, castigated, and persecuted like those who questioned the claims of the Roman Catholic Church 700 years ago.

Everything should be doubted (yes, even the belief that "everything should be doubted" should be as well). If anyone tells another person that "such-and-such has been settled, and should therefore not be questioned", you can be SURE that you are about to be scammed. Don't fall for this nonsense, don't drink the Kool-Aid, don't swallow the blue pill. Global Warming is the latest secular religion: it's all about Gaia-worship, it's a revival of paganism dressed as "science".

I think for what it's worth opposing views to the prevailing "climate change" theories should be welcome. What I am witnessing though, is these views (such as Burkin or Tony Abbott or Andrew Bolt) lack the veracity of solid evidence. In the case of Abbott and Bolt they were just parroting what the coal/petroleum industry have been saying for years. Many of these figures mentioned are natural enemies of the environmental movement so are simply taking a stand for the sake of perpetuating coal fired power stations etc...the latest tactic from anti-green conservatives is claiming green energy will lead to old people freezing to death because they can't pay power bills that would have been cheaper with coal fired power stations...

I won't try to speak for Abbott and Bolt (or Abbott and Costello), but my own independent research into this matter has not turned up any hard evidence linking a specific atmospheric gas to an appreciable mean global increase in temperatures. The graphs presented by people with ulterior political motives (like Al Gore) do not impress, because they are usually terribly flawed (does everyone here recall the "hockey-stick graph" controversy?), for a number of reasons.

Yes, it's true, I'm not actually a climatologist, or even a T.V. weatherman. I will admit that. However, many of the people who like to rave on about how "we must do something", and that if we do not we are all doomed, have even fewer qualifications than I on the subject. Many of them are little more than uni students, or so-called science journalists who can't tell the difference between carbon and carbon-dioxide, thinking they are one and the same.

I've visited the N.A.S.A. website and seen what they have there on this specific topic, and I am always surprised at how imprecise and inconclusive the evidence they actually present to bolster their case truly is. The interpretation of the evidence is just as important as the evidence itself, and people like the ones who work at N.A.S.A. tend to interpret the evidence to support what they already believe about this issue. They suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias, any evidence that clearly contradicts the prevailing view being marginalised or ignored entirely.

Yes,all the pagans and scientists will be gathering this Lammas day to burn all the deniers in a giant wicker man. Need to seperate the wheat from the chaff.