Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Winehole23]

So you have all the answers? Please tell us in your own words what specifically has changed over the last 150 years that is abnormal relative to the changes the planet has seen over 4 billion years...then explain and quantify how human impact is responsible for that change. Don't give me any links either. Tell me in your own words what you know to be true and understand.

Maybe, just maybe, the cause could be multiple factors in addition to human impact that have contributed to changes in our climate? And if so, how much?


I will admit, I do not know the answers which is why I consider it debatable, but I guess you have all the answers since I am a gullible fool and you are not.

I do not deny humans have had a negative impact on our climate and resources. I am suggesting that there are multiple factors and their levels of contribution in a Spurs political forum, yes, is debatable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you have all the answers? Please tell us in your own words what specifically has changed over the last 150 years that is abnormal relative to the changes the planet has seen over 4 billion years...then explain and quantify how human impact is responsible for that change. Don't give me any links either. Tell me in your own words what you know to be true and understand.

Maybe, just maybe, the cause could be multiple factors in addition to human impact that have contributed to changes in our climate? And if so, how much?


I will admit, I do not know the answers which is why I consider it debatable, but I guess you have all the answers since I am a gullible fool and you are not.

I do not deny humans have had a negative impact on our climate and resources. I am suggesting that there are multiple factors and their levels of contribution in a Spurs political forum, yes, is debatable.

Darrin or WC.

Same arguments. Different name.

[DMC]

Darrin or WC.

Same arguments. Different name.

Another Fuzzy assessment from the liberal version of Wild Cobra.

[DMC]

Nice of you to offer a hand.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Another Fuzzy assessment from the liberal version of Wild Cobra.

Is this the part where I whine about not talking to you and mind your own business?

Maybe you can get KW to like your post here or something but most people just don't give a about your weak ass attempts at insulting. if you're going to make vague attempts at a dig like that you at least need to come up with some sort of explanation. For example there is evidence of you being fat, fatties.

Both Darren and wc have been making these lukewarm agreements with climate science lately but then advocating for no action. The only thing missing is ling those that want action as alarmist. It is what it is

[Winehole23]

[RandomGuy]

Is this the part where I whine about not talking to you and mind your own business?

Maybe you can get KW to like your post here or something but most people just don't give a about your weak ass attempts at insulting. if you're going to make vague attempts at a dig like that you at least need to come up with some sort of explanation. For example there is evidence of you being fat, fatties.

Both Darren and wc have been making these lukewarm agreements with climate science lately but then advocating for no action. The only thing missing is ling those that want action as alarmist. It is what it is

Until we collectively have to pay the price for their inaction and ed conspiracy theories being translated into policy.

[Winehole23]

"externalities"

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...eaths-research

[RandomGuy]

Another Fuzzy assessment from the liberal version of Wild Cobra.

Scientists have established links between pervasive air pollution from burning fossil fuels and cases of heart disease, respiratory ailments and even the loss of eyesight. Without fossil fuel emissions, the average life expectancy of the world’s population would increase by more than a year, while global economic and health costs would fall by about $2.9tn.

[RandomGuy]

We agree climate change exists. We just aren't going to blindly follow your supposed solutions which sometimes are political and ideological.

Climate change exists, and we are the primary driver. That is what the science says.

The solution is to simply burn less fossil fuels, and stop deforestation.

It isn't hard, nor really driven by any ideology other than self-preservation.

How hard do you think a trillion dollar industry would work to discredit valid, good science that showed its product was harmful?

[DMC]

Climate change exists, and we are the primary driver. That is what the science says.

The solution is to simply burn less fossil fuels, and stop deforestation.

It isn't hard, nor really driven by any ideology other than self-preservation.

How hard do you think a trillion dollar industry would work to discredit valid, good science that showed its product was harmful?

You first

[RandomGuy]

You first

Pretty damn hard. They would fund all sorts of shills, front groups, white papers, and push narratives through proxies, and paid-for politicians.

Your turn.

How hard do you think a trillion dollar industry would work to discredit valid, good science that showed its product was harmful?

[DMC]

Pretty damn hard. They would fund all sorts of shills, front groups, white papers, and push narratives through proxies, and paid-for politicians.

Your turn.

How hard do you think a trillion dollar industry would work to discredit valid, good science that showed its product was harmful?

I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. I was saying "you use less fossil fuels" first. Also, stop using paper and wood products.

[RandomGuy]

I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. I was saying "you use less fossil fuels" first. Also, stop using paper and wood products.

ah. gotcha.

You dodged the question entirely for a lazy jab, instead of looking for any kind of discussion.

I gave you too much credit.

my bad. I should have known better.

[DMC]

ah. gotcha.

You dodged the question entirely for a lazy jab, instead of looking for any kind of discussion.

I gave you too much credit.

my bad. I should have known better.

Not a lazy jab. If you want change, change. Talk about what you're going to do differently and stop pretending you're a remote viewer.

[RandomGuy]

Not a lazy jab. If you want change, change. Talk about what you're going to do differently and stop pretending you're a remote viewer.

"my two word post was NOT lazy".

More laziness, mixed in with flawed thinking.

What is Tu Quoque (Logical Fallacy) in Rhetoric?
An ad hominem argument in which the accused becomes the accuser

"The tu quoque fallacy occurs when one charges another with hypocrisy or inconsistency in order to avoid taking the other's position seriously.

Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid mother er.

[DMC]

"my two word post was NOT lazy".

More laziness, mixed in with flawed thinking.




Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid mother er.

If we were having a formal debate then sure, you could accuse me of using that logical fallacy but in this thread, you suggested the world change something and yet you have likely not done so yourself.

So what position do you hold that I should take seriously? That others should change but not you?

[RandomGuy]

[repeats flawed argument based on flawed reasoning as if re-stating it a second time makes it more valid than the first.]

You do you, boo. Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid mother er.

[DMC]

You do you, boo. Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid mother er.

That's real grown of you.

[RandomGuy]

That's real grown of you.

<Randomguy shrugs>

It is actually more grown than repeatedly using failed reasoning, even when that failure has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions. That is down right childish.

C'est va?

[RandomGuy]

What is funny to me though, is that the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bull , and failed reasoning on the part of people who want to take the policy position that we should not do anything about climate change because it either isn't real or would have some unbearable burden on the economy.

Neither of those things is, in fact, true.

The only way you can support those beliefs is with failures of reasoning.

Every time your childish ass refuses to evaluate your own thinking, you prove my point.

Suck it.

[DMC]

<Randomguy shrugs>

It is actually more grown than repeatedly using failed reasoning, even when that failure has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions. That is down right childish.

C'est va?

Your dipole moment passed years ago

[DMC]

What is funny to me though, is that the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bull , and failed reasoning on the part of people who want to take the policy position that we should not do anything about climate change because it either isn't real or would have some unbearable burden on the economy.

Neither of those things is, in fact, true.

The only way you can support those beliefs is with failures of reasoning.

Every time your childish ass refuses to evaluate your own thinking, you prove my point.

Suck it.

Dem leaders/GOP leaders... all believe in invisible sky daddy.

Talk more about pseudoscientific bull .

[RandomGuy]

We only have 12 years left tho.

Creeping toward Permanent Drought
Both trees and climate models are telling us the same frightening story

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...manent-drought

You.
ing.
science-denying.
moron.

Told you a decade ago that the data would ac ulate each year, and it has.

The CO2 we have emitted in massive quanities has started having profound effects, and there is some concern that those effects will be self-sustaining.

[RandomGuy]

Dem leaders/GOP leaders... all believe in invisible sky daddy.

Talk more about pseudoscientific bull .

Going from an tu cocque to a false equivalence.

Do they both let their sky-daddy beliefs guide their policy equally?