Judgment Day - May 21st, 2011

Post Reply New Topic

That and, for the radical changes being asked, it's really difficult not to see it as a massive political land-grab.

This call is great... what a supermassive douche (Camping... not the caller...)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9acwNHKvoo&feature=related[/youtube]

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 27 Apr 2011, 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bang on there. It's all about oppressing the common people, the vermin, the non-assenters, and taking yet more tax from them.

I differentiate between skepticism and denialism- however, blindly rejecting notions without looking at the evidence is what I count as denialism. Most people willing to go along this path consider the wealth of climate data tl;dr, or are just parroting talking points. That is taking it on faith
However, the scientific community has pretty well reached consensus on the matter. The most obvious thing changing is the climate, and the conditions of the environment, the pH of the ocean... The science was proven long ago, its pretty basic chemistry and biology at work, and planetary science



Why is it about oppressing 'common people'? When I read statements like this it just reinforces the idea that most of the denialist camp are tin foil hatters- not a good way to support ones cause. Not suggesting you yourself are one



Its too late to make changes. The only thing I tend to agree on is that there are people trying to profit off of this, just like everything else. The real issue is the way left and right wing media take things out of context in negative and positive lights. I don't expect either of you to peruse the data, but if you're willing to reject it based on... [what exactly?] I expect you to at least have a background in it

I'm very sorry, but Mother Nature does what the hell she wants to do. Who are we to gainsay her?

She must find it all absolutely hilarious how we feel that we can pre-empt her wishes and opinions.

How self-infatuated we must be.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon and it's not anything we can do about. it's just there. The climate changes all the time. Tomorrow I might get sun, or I might get clouds. The TV can't even express it's forecast for the next day accurately so I'm buggered if I'm going to accept an unelected, autocratic EU elite's word on anything.

Science is what it is. There are opinions and there are more opinions. That is science. It is only what we have learnt so far.

Pass me a packet of pork scratchings and while you're about it, turn the lights on. Non-EU approved light bulbs, of course.

The world is filled with people who have the time, or have the career or the obligation, to listen to this stuff, analyze it for its actual gravity, and deal with it. Its like Intelligent Design in that yes, if you read Signature In The Cell, to a layman - one who'd assume that the author isn't lying, the picture looks dazzlingly obvious. At the same time though see how far the ID movement is getting in schools. Like that, if Global Warming (TM) were what people claimed it was, there would be a *real* rally on Washington, a *real* rally on governments all over the world, the CIA's and FBI's would be profoundly interested, you'd see much more in the way of redundancy planning in the structure of society so that a few lynch pins failing won't take out the whole fabric. To believe in a Strangelove type theory that the government reps would know about this, say "Great, lets lose the vermin", hide out in bunkers and sip coffee or perhaps literally play the fiddle while Rome burns.... that's tinfoil hattery of to the order of Celestine Prophecy or Alan Watt.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here- either that Intelligent Design is correct, that Climate Change is equatable to Intelligent Design (which is laughable), or that Intelligent Design sucks? Sorry for misunderstanding



There is a 'rally' on Washington and other major contributors to the problem's capitals. There is a rally on the UN. Most major countries in the world are aware. Have you heard of the IPCC? Or looked at NOAA's data? The CIA & FBI would be irrelevant agencies to mention in any case, as this is not their field- but since you put it that way, the relevant scientific agencies around the world have been engaged, and other then a few sock puppets for industry, all support the notion



You see- this is the kind of the right wing media says about the whole thing. That is 'Strangelove type theory', that its apocalyptic doom-saying... There are no scientists claiming anything of the kind. They [the 'skeptics' 'scientists']are funded by companies with a direct interest in not allowing environmental regulations. The most obvious way to turn people against scientific consensus is to make it look like fear mongering, which it most certainly is not. They have been shifting the goal-posts for decades. Previously, it was 'there is no evidence for climate change'. Once evidence was solidly accepted, they change their tune to 'the science is flawed'. Which is a fallacious argument, as they tend to cite the same data that climate scientists use to support their theory. How can they criticize data and yet also use it to support their claims? Think about it. Who is being dishonest?



Yep, the climate changes naturally. And yet there has never, ever been changes like we're seeing today. All major changes require a push factor, be that an impact event, vulcanism, methane-hydrate release, whatever- look at our time period. Are we going through any serious natural-induced changes? The geological record supports the science that we are undergoing an unprecedented change- and even in the past, when there were drastic changes that weren't caused by major events, it happened over thousands of years or more. Even in the oceans, there has never been an analogous period of rapid pH drop. The only thing on the Earth, right now, that is making any major environmental impacts (and you can even see it from space)- is Man. It isn't that hard to accept, if you consider that other life-forms also affect climate. Do you think the Earth always had oxygen in its atmosphere? No. Originally the simple life that evolved here produced oxygen as a waste product from their respiration, that eventually lead to their own extinction, and to the supremacy of oxygen breathing organisms. Look at how trees affect the atmospheric composition, or how algae changes the composition of free oxygen in water- organisms having an affect on the planetary ecological systems is not a new concept. The only difference is we have machines helping us do it much more rapidly

You also seem to be mistaking climate for weather...

I was going to ask:

"What is going to happen to prisons when their prisoners disappear?"


But you won't disappear, you will be stuck here, haha, you'll see.

Well, hopefully the rapture will come on May 21st, so we can finally get those fundie a**holes out of our hair.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Just because he used the word denialism it does not mean the science has not been proven. It basically has, at least to the point that it is confirmed there is a climate change. The reason people use the word denial is that you are trying to ignore the evidence and just yell that nothing has been proven. You pretend like a fact is not, that's denial. And, not unlike the Holocaust deniers, you do it to advance an agenda.

I'll phrase it differently - those who see it as an imminent threat are making about as good a public case as PETA. If they're right its a shame that they haven't had the common sense to present it as something that's of so much concern that they're even willing to work with all sides to minimize invasion and find as much win/win territory as possible (yes, I wouldn't be surprised at all if that is happening behind closed doors, just like I know GE and lots of other companies are on the train *but* - in the public sphere its still a very left-leaning thing where the average conservative is far from being a sycophant from the oil companies - ie. they want a cleaner environment but they're believers that the technology will not only sell itself but resolve the problem on its own in the next 50 years).


I'll tell you what - they need to make pronouncements, solutions, things that would seem reasonable to most people regardless of their affiliation. That can be done with basic common sense. If you believe that the outcomes are less than what they're being hyped up to be, we already have green technology just as an efficiency standard and buying preference making its doublings and given more time and a few more decades for green energy firms to improve their process and understand their markets - I don't see where huge government crackdowns on what's at present make sense.

At the same time I have to bring this up, if you are speaking as a believer in global warming but not as an alarmist, we likely are talking about two different things. From what Tequila said, by the tone he brought it with, I took it as 'invasive' 'radical change now' global warming belief. Obviously I don't believe in their cause because reasonable people - the scientists making these claims - would find themselves going to more extreme ends. That's typically what people worry about. Just like in the rare instances where lets say a thread pops up here which happens to be critical of feminism - they're typically not writing about that which exists by its dictionary definition.

Hey, at least the movie soundtrack was catchy.

That's quite common here amongst extreme environmentalists. Unfortunately, they have very much have a say with government.

And then there are those that actively want to cull the Earth's population because of some twisted notion of science. And those that want us all to live medieval existences.

These are the extremists, but the elites mainly see the 'green' ethic as a way to increase taxes and line their own pockets.

If the rapture, what is the betting most rapturoids will stick around?

I was about to tell him no such luck - he'll still have to listen to 144,000 former Jews proclaiming the name of Christ.