Merger = Global Warming

[Polycaster]

Both get blamed for everything in an attempt to advance a bullshit agenda.

I started on day 1 with a buddy, after we got bind at lvl 12 we were rarely in competition with anyone for xp, even though virtually everyone was within a few levels of us. Sometimes we were the only people in a zone (rathe mtn orcs, for example).

Rare loot is rare for a reason, not everyone will be able to log on during primetime and start a group for lord/am/hand that also pulls frenzy (as my group did on green a few weeks ago.) But there are tons of empty xp spots out there, get some fucking nuts and some social skills to exploit those spots.

====

That said, merging the /list camps was a dick move by the devs. At a minimum, they should have created an extra mob in each zone with the teal list and no one else able to /list on that extra mob. Then remove mob when /list was empty.

[Jubal]

Who helped you figure out how to sign up for a forum?

[Horza]

https://i.imgur.com/0G1PBHd.gif

[Canelek]

Climate = no change, earth = flat, vaccines = autism.

You actually may fit in pretty well around here.

[beversami]

Can you confirm or deny that you are also a Holocaust denier?

[solleks]

Post proof

[Polycaster]

Who helped you figure out how to sign up for a forum?

Who helped you figure out that joke?


Can you confirm or deny that you are also a Holocaust denier?

I deny.


Climate = no change, earth = flat, vaccines = autism.

You actually may fit in pretty well around here.


Of course the climate is changing, it's been changing since the earth acquired an atmosphere. Humans have little or nothing to do with it.

The earth isn't flat it's hollow, and it's getting bigger. How else do you explain the need to add digits to the zip code? Zip code measures area, not population so if the gov adds digits to the zip code obviously its because the earth is getting bigger. As with so many "conspiracy theories" it all becomes an obvious conspiracy fact once you see with open eyes and an enlightened mind.

[indiscriminate_hater]

confirmed Holocaust denier!

[Polycaster]

confirmed Holocaust denier!

L2Read

[cd288]

So did you basically just contradict your own statement in your own post OP? Interesting tactic doing both in the same post lol

[suptoofs]

Who helped you figure out how to sign up for a forum?

LOL A+

[Canelek]

I knew things were going to be problematic once Alabama agreed to share their internet connection with the Florida panhandle. And look where we are now.

[Polycaster]

So did you basically just contradict your own statement in your own post OP? Interesting tactic doing both in the same post lol

Did you basically just not read and like basically just state nonsense? LOL roflsauce teehee giggles

[Wonkie]

The bunnies are angry! ANGRY I TELL YOU!

[Bardp1999]

OP is a cuck and I wish him 1000 evil eye bags

[Smellybuttface]

Both get blamed for everything in an attempt to advance a bullshit agenda.

I started on day 1 with a buddy, after we got bind at lvl 12 we were rarely in competition with anyone for xp, even though virtually everyone was within a few levels of us. Sometimes we were the only people in a zone (rathe mtn orcs, for example).

Rare loot is rare for a reason, not everyone will be able to log on during primetime and start a group for lord/am/hand that also pulls frenzy (as my group did on green a few weeks ago.) But there are tons of empty xp spots out there, get some fucking nuts and some social skills to exploit those spots.

====

That said, merging the /list camps was a dick move by the devs. At a minimum, they should have created an extra mob in each zone with the teal list and no one else able to /list on that extra mob. Then remove mob when /list was empty.

1. Everquest requires neither nuts nor social skills.
2. Climate change is real, and it’s caused by humans. You can listen to politicians, or you can listen to scientists. I choose to listen to scientists, whom 99% of respected scientific publications are in agreement.
3. Due to the presence of #2, your argument is irrational and without merit.

[TripSin]

Who helped you figure out how to sign up for a forum?

Real questions that need answers.

[solleks]

1. Everquest requires neither nuts nor social skills.
2. Climate change is real, and it’s caused by humans. You can listen to politicians, or you can listen to scientists. I choose to listen to scientists, whom 99% of respected scientific publications are in agreement. no proof
3. Due to the presence of #2, your argument is irrational and without merit.

[solleks]

Appealing to the authority of scientists without proof is irrational amd without merit

[Siege]

Appealing to the authority of scientists without proof is irrational amd without merit

I was told by a top EverQuest scientist that P99 poopsocks are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than all the cow farts in the world.

[Canelek]

Faith vs. Science

FIGHT!

[TomisFeline]

holy shit I had no clue we had climate change deniers on p99...or in 2020.

this place is like a timewarp to the late 90s in more way than one, it turns out.

[solleks]

Sorry you got trolled by tv

[Asteria]

Sorry you got trolled by tv

Lol, you gonna get out there and make some money?

[Asteria]

Sorry you got trolled by tv

You ain't done NOTHING since you got back

[Phaezed-Reality]

I don't think anyone deny's climate change and that it is man made. I don't think all of you have read enough to know that almost all reasonable scientists without an agenda explain that there isn't enough science/data to make any bold claims. As far as i seen all they can point to is more co2 in the atmosphere, but can't attribute it to any direct problem. ie global warming. Any reasonable scientist will tell you it's possible, but there isn't enough data.

Now, when you see big money pushing the world will end in 10 years, over and over again every 10 years for the last 40 years, well. Thats how you get donald trump, thats how you get climate denial. weak wrists etc. bad information, group think. big money. greta. All to blame for todays big oofs.

[Asteria]

Uh oh, Phazed-Reality is thinking. This can't be good.

[solleks]

Lol, you gonna get out there and make some money?

You ain't done NOTHING since you got back

Huh? Sorry u got pillrf

[solleks]

Lmk when florida is underwater then we can fret

[solleks]

Huh? Sorry u got pillrf

Sorry your so scared. My condolences.

[kjs86z]

WTC7 first modern steel building to collapse at free fall speed due to "normal fires."

[Jubal]

Sorry your so scared. My condolences.

When you outsmart NASA, IPCC, the UN, nearly every national government, the entirety of academia, the pope, basic lab experiments on the greenhouse effect, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Exxon (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/), global scientific consensus, but you just can't quite get the right tense of "you're".

[solleks]

He has embodied the word scared and made it a personality. Get the fuck over it

[solleks]

Check out Chinese moon landing videos if u enjoy lies so much

[Asteria]

Huh? Sorry u got pillrf

Huh, is that supposed to be English?

[solleks]

When you outsmart NASA, IPCC, the UN, nearly every national government, the entirety of academia, the pope, basic lab experiments on the greenhouse effect, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Exxon (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/), global scientific consensus, but you just can't quite get the right tense of "you're".
traumatized as a kid by your government and media. now you trust and love your abusers. I wish things could be different

[Asteria]

Check out Chinese moon landing videos if u enjoy lies so much

Plain Ridiculous

[solleks]

Lol, you gonna get out there and make some money?

You ain't done NOTHING since you got back

No context, no meaning

[solleks]

Now check out our moon landing with the same brain

[Smellybuttface]

traumatized as a kid by your government and media. now you trust and love your abusers. I wish things could be different

“Scared” is sticking your head in the sand while fervently telling yourself “it’s all a lie! We’re totally fine!”

[Asteria]

No context, no meaning

They'll let anyone shitpost here these days...

[solleks]

No that's strength to not believe lies and use your brain to look for truth

[solleks]

They'll let anyone shitpost here these days...

Bigot

[Asteria]

No that's strength to not believe lies and use your brain to look for truth

Well if it ain't braaave Solleks....

Don't smile, your face might crack.

[solleks]

Well if it ain't braaave Solleks....

Don't smile, your face might crack.

How many drugs did you consume already today

[solleks]

:D

[Wonkie]

we brapping in here?

organic farming IS genocide

[solleks]

All farming is genocide since they burn boatloads of diesel and propane. They are trying to genocide Floridians by drowning them

[Horza]

solleks is smarter than every scientist at NASA, you heard it here first.

[suptoofs]

All farming is genocide since they burn boatloads of diesel and propane. They are trying to genocide Floridians by drowning them

Used to live in Florida. We should just cut off that turd and let it float away.

[solleks]

solleks is smarter than every scientist at NASA, you heard it here first.

I know how to take a compliment from my biggest fan, thank you sir! *tips safety helmet*

[Frostback]

Yes, climate change is real but humans aren't the sole cause of it. The craziness behind global warming is also greatly exaggerated, and the planet tends to do better when it's warmer. The amount of deaths due to environmental disasters has consistently gone down because of advancing technology.

I like the high population, makes this server feel more classic. Back on live on the povar server, populations were similar (1200ppl on primetime).

[Jubal]

Yes, climate change is real but humans aren't the sole cause of it. The craziness behind global warming is also greatly exaggerated, and the planet tends to do better when it's warmer. The amount of deaths due to environmental disasters has consistently gone down because of advancing technology.

I like the high population, makes this server feel more classic. Back on live on the povar server, populations were similar (1200ppl on primetime).

Get your water checked for lead.

[Horza]

The craziness behind global warming is also greatly exaggerated, and the planet tends to do better when it's warmer.

https://i.imgur.com/0G1PBHd.gif

[Frostback]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/

"The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity.

Nor does the fact that it has been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods, enough to submerge most major cities around the world."

[solleks]

All that data is made up garbage

[Horza]

Thats how you get donald trump, thats how you get climate denial. weak wrists etc. bad information, group think. big money. greta. All to blame for todays big oofs.

I think that you've watched quite enough Fox News today, old timer.

[Horza]

https://i.imgur.com/ziVAVR5.jpg

[suptoofs]

All that data is made up garbage

Genuine question -

Do you actually believe what you are typing here or are you just trolling?

[solleks]

I know they have no way of knowing the temperature millions of years ago. It's made up shat

[solleks]

Why don't you tell me how they know aka prove it

[Polycaster]

1. Everquest requires neither nuts nor social skills.
2. Climate change is real, and it’s caused by humans. You can listen to politicians, or you can listen to scientists. I choose to listen to scientists, whom 99% of respected scientific publications are in agreement.
3. Due to the presence of #2, your argument is irrational and without merit.

1. Playing EQ _well_ does require nuts and social skills, as proven by the many who lack them that experience difficulty in the most basic of functions such as getting xp.

2. Those 97% claims have been debunked so many times for so many years that only a mental disorder and/or a global conspiracy can explain why so many still believe it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#4fb88d4f3f9f

https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-97-climate-consensus-myth/

3. By your own reasoning, since you were wrong about #2 you are wrong about everything. Or something. I'm not quite sure what you are babbling on about here.

Shitlib scientists have claimed that temperature is going to rise astronomically and if we completely gut the world economy, dropping us into a planned never-ending recession we'll decrease the rise a small amount. Like it will be a '6' change if we go on business as usual, and '4' if we force the world (somehow?) to be poor and struggling for eternity. Which of course is the real goal the rest of the tree-hugger nonsense masks. Personally, even if it was 100% true that humans are causing warming that it's bad (it's not) I'd still choose Waterworld over a global USSR. The earth and humans can recover from any natural calamity, but a global USSR would permanently twist the world and humans into its evil shape.


An interesting vid by a professor of planetary sciences. He makes the case that if it wasn't for man-made increases in temperature our current interglacial period would have ended, with the ice age starting up again. No way to judge if its true or not, but its interesting that there are more scientific theories than the simplistic politically determined "theory" that you sheep have been indoctrinated to believe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

===

https://i.imgur.com/0G1PBHd.gif


Why are you showing a vid of your GFs reaction to seeing you naked for the first time? Some men are just less "gifted" than others, you need to find other ways to keep her satisfied. Perhaps other men. She's probably doing that on her own already, you might as well put a brave face on it.

The planet and in particular humans have always done better when the planet was warming. Look into the effects of the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age, as but 2 examples.

[Polycaster]

I was told by a top EverQuest scientist that P99 poopsocks are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than all the cow farts in the world.

Fake news. Poopsocks are actually one of the best ways to sequester CO2, as long as you bury them in the backyard rather than put them in the wash for mom to find. Also, future archeologists will be much happier to make such a find than your mom.

[Horza]

I'm sure that the planet will do much better when our species goes extinct. Begone shitlib scientists!

[Teppler]

Global warming is largely bullshit and a scam. The earth goes through ebbs and flows climate wise that exist over thousands of years. There's been time periods where it's been regularly hotter than this. There's been ice ages. We really don't effect that much as humans. To prove my point I'll bring up the idea that in the 80's it was said within 25 years we will have faced major damage, significant land would be eroded, places would become inhospitable etc.... none of that is even close to happening and we are 15 years past that date. They keep pushing it back another 30-50 years so that boogie man is always just on the horizon.

[Horza]

Personally, even if it was 100% true that humans are causing warming that it's bad (it's not) I'd still choose Waterworld over a global USSR. The earth and humans can recover from any natural calamity.

Head, meet sand.

[Horza]

ITT: Holocaust deniers claim the overwhelming scientific consensus on man-made climate change is actually a global conspiracy by a mysterious, all-powerful other.

[Jubal]

Global warming is largely bullshit and a scam. The earth goes through ebbs and flows climate wise that exist over thousands of years. There's been time periods where it's been regularly hotter than this. There's been ice ages. We really don't effect that much as humans. To prove my point I'll bring up the idea that in the 80's it was said within 25 years we will have faced major damage, significant land would be eroded, places would become inhospitable etc.... none of that is even close to happening and we are 15 years past that date. They keep pushing it back another 30-50 years so that boogie man is always just on the horizon.

You're largely a moron who thinks the greenhouse effect and atmospheric composition aren't real.

[Polycaster]

ITT: Holocaust deniers claim the overwhelming scientific consensus on man-made climate change is actually a global conspiracy by a mysterious, all-powerful other.

You didn't read what was actually asked and answered.
I just debunked that there is anything like a consensus.
The other option was a mental disorder. Obviously not your only one.

[Jimjam]

So happy to see a hollow earther! It was a great hook in Murdoch Mysteries!

[Teppler]

You're largely a moron who thinks the greenhouse effect and atmospheric composition aren't real.

Of course our astmophere has a composition. The greenhouse effect is greatly exaggerated. Our atmosphere is apparently very resilient. At the very least, we don't effect it anywhere near as much as was tried to be pushed on us.

Global warming estimations from fearmongering "scientists" had where I was living underwater a long time ago. It's not close to happening and there's no sign it will happen. What went wrong? These were scientists that made this claim!

Again, there's been time periods when it's been much hotter than this in earths history. During these times CO2 emissions are higher whether or not industrialization or farming happens. Our atmosphere has recovered.

Here's an interesting thought- We're going to have another ice age eventually. According to this source there's been at least 5 throughout earth's history-

https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/

The first one was over 2 billion years ago. The last one was 3 million years ago. So the earth cools down every couple million years at the very least. You're here for 100 years in your life time if you're lucky. Humans have existed for only a couple thousand years. If your descendants reproduce you'll have to go through hundreds of generations to naturally reach a cool down period.

[Polycaster]

You're largely a moron who thinks the greenhouse effect and atmospheric composition aren't real.

No one has said this. If you had a real argument you wouldn't need to strawman and ad hominem so hard.

https://principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/


The links in this thread took me about 10 minutes total to find and preview. It's not hard to find why you people are wrong; why do you insist on remaining wrong? Is it because your programming is more powerful than data? Where did this programming come from?

[Horza]

Teppler is a modern Renaissance man, both an amateur climate scientist and an expert in German history during World War Two.

[Polycaster]

Global warming estimations from fearmongering "scientists" had where I was living underwater a long time ago. It's not close to happening and there's no sign it will happen. What went wrong? These were scientists that made this claim!



It's weird how so many celebrities and politicians who hype global warming and claim the oceans are rising are still paying 8 figures for beach front property.

[Polycaster]

So happy to see a hollow earther! It was a great hook in Murdoch Mysteries!

I loved the concept in Burrows' Pelucidar books.

[Horza]

Is it because your programming is more powerful than data? Where did this programming come from?

ITT: Holocaust deniers claim the overwhelming scientific consensus on man-made climate change is actually a global conspiracy by a mysterious, all-powerful other.

[Horza]

Starting to feel like we're going in circles a little bit.

[Canelek]

So far it looks like Faith is asking Science to Prove It.

cool

[Teppler]

So far it looks like Faith is asking Science to Prove It.

cool

Well personally, it's the tax payer in me that is asking for you to prove it considering there's huge money attached to 'green projects'. Shouldn't they be able to justify their positions?

If you just want to insanely scream about global warming, I don't really mind. When you try to get into my pocket about it, I have to ask that your position is strong.

[solleks]

I know how liars work, they don't prove it bro

[solleks]

Prove y know jack shit about a million years ago or ur a science cuck

[Jubal]

[QUOTE=Teppler;3072071] Humans have existed for only a couple thousand years. /QUOTE]

It's incredible these troglodyte asshat contrarians can feel so smug and superior while sounding so goddamn stupid. They literally know nearly nothing about an incredibly studied topic and proceed to educate everyone else on it.

[Horza]

It's incredible these troglodyte asshat contrarians can feel so smug and superior while sounding so goddamn stupid. They literally know nearly nothing about an incredibly studied topic and proceed to educate everyone else on it.

Can you even prove that humans currently exist, science cuck.

[Evets]

The world has been ending due to climate change for years apparently ... then al gore found a way for politicians to profit from it and now I'm getting TAXED for it! all because I have to heat my home in winter and drive a vehicle to work. WOOOOW. I'm still waiting and I'll still be waiting in 12 years time (or is it 10 they say we have left now?)

All I see is politicians and other fat cats getting rich off of me and all the other peasants ... now i'm just wondering when the OXYGEN tax is coming in for having to breathe!

Just another in the long chain of recent scams to force us out of our hard earned money.

Also I thought taxes were supposed to be for war time efforts? anyone know the percentage of taxation now compared to 1940s?

[Teppler]

I know how liars work, they don't prove it bro

I'll tell you have the absolute best liars work. They mix truth with lies. They'll tell you A & B is true and they'll be right. You'll be able to confirm it yourself. Then they'll say C is also true but that one is something you can't prove one way or the other. And that's where the best lies are slipped in. Yes it's true climate changes. The idea that we're causing irreparable damage..... eh.

[Wonkie]

Also I thought taxes were supposed to be for war time efforts? anyone know the percentage of taxation now compared to 1940s?

In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars3). That’s a high tax rate.

2018-2020


The highest income tax rate was lowered to 37 percent for tax years beginning in 2018. The additional 3.8 percent is still applicable, making the maximum federal income tax rate 40.8 percent.

[Polycaster]

So far it looks like Faith is asking Science to Prove It.

cool

What are you babbling about? No one has brought up religion or faith. I have debunked the "97% consensus" nonsense, and provided other links to evidence that man-made climate change is over-hyped.

[Horza]

When I'm deciding on environmental policy, the man I want to hear from is one who thinks that our species is a couple thousand years old and the Holocaust was just spraying for typhus.

[Jimjam]

Well personally, it's the tax payer in me that is asking for you to prove it considering there's huge money attached to 'green projects'. Shouldn't they be able to justify their positions?

If you just want to insanely scream about global warming, I don't really mind. When you try to get into my pocket about it, I have to ask that your position is strong.

Well, lets ignore global warming. Reducing global warming is just a bonus to the real benefits of ‘green projects’.

Dinojuice is rare, expensive to extract, and often requires military force to secure a dinosaurgraveyard.

Wind blow, sun burn and river flow. It’s easy to see why energy companies are interested in these options and becoming less reliant on old trees and dinosaur juice. The real reason for pursuit of ‘green’ is nothing to do with the environment.

It’s just diversifying suppliers of generated energy and reducing logistical problems (no more Iran taking control of ships that navigated the wrong route, Saudi price fixing, Russians turning off taps, etc as well as simply being able to generate energy closer to the point of delivery).

‘Green’ is just marketing. e.g. Interfering with waterways has devastating ecological consequences (whether blocking navigations with hydro, or using water as cooling for furnaces or nuclear).

So yea, ignoring environmental issues both ways, “green” has some advantages in terms of source, supply, competition, logistics and distribution but the best solution might be a mixed approach.

[Tzug]

Takes quite a bit of arrogance to think you know more about climate change than NASA, the Pentagon and the energy companies themselves (who have known about climate change since at least the 80s--this is not speculation; there are internal documents that prove it).

I also enjoy the people saying "the earth has been going through warming and cooling periods before" as if none of the above-mentioned agencies have never thought of that. "We have the scientific and technical expertise to put a man on the moon but we didn't see that objection! Thank you, message-board climate denier!"

If your belief on an issue happens to be at odds with the vest majority of people, especially the people most informed on the topic, AND it happens to (conveniently) also be the same belief that asks you to do nothing, it may be time to scrutinize that belief.

[Evets]

Takes quite a bit of arrogance to think you know more about climate change than NASA, the Pentagon and the energy companies themselves


You trust NASA and the big energy companies? .... yikes

[Teppler]

Well, lets ignore global warming. Reducing global warming is just a bonus to the real benefits of ‘green projects’.

Dinojuice is rare, expensive to extract, and often requires military force to secure a dinosaurgraveyard.

Wind blow, sun burn and river flow. It’s easy to see why energy companies are interested in these options and becoming less reliant on old trees and dinosaur juice. The real reason for pursuit of ‘green’ is nothing to do with the environment.

It’s just diversifying suppliers of generated energy and reducing logistical problems (no more Iran taking control of ships that navigated the wrong route, Saudi price fixing, Russians turning off taps, etc as well as simply being able to generate energy closer to the point of delivery).

‘Green’ is just marketing. e.g. Interfering with waterways has devastating ecological consequences (whether blocking navigations with hydro, or using water as cooling for furnaces or nuclear).

So yea, ignoring environmental issues both ways, “green” has some advantages in terms of source, supply, competition, logistics and distribution but the best solution might be a mixed approach.

There's always going to be advances to supplying and generating energy. Some of that is going to cross over into green for sure. It should be explored organically. The problem is beating people over the head with global warming. But you're saying let's ignore that for a hypothetical.

[Horza]

You trust NASA and the big energy companies? .... yikes

https://i.imgur.com/ziVAVR5.jpg

[Danth]

My 4th grade science book (a mid 70's edition, as might be expected) explained in no uncertain terms how the world would be completely out of oil by the year 2000. I remember that one because my science teacher made a point of laughing at it and used it as an example of how a person shouldn't necessarily believe everything he reads. Later, by the time I was in middle school we were being fed propaganda "science" videos which vividly illustrated how we'd all be breathing out of air tanks and how natural plants and trees would be a mere distant memory by the time we were old enough to have our own children/grandchildren. Ridiculous--just scare tactics.

The environmental movement can be its own worst enemy. Its constant tendency to do "boy who cried wolf" impersonations and constantly hype worst-case doomsday scenarios--while continually moving the goalposts when said scenarios fail to happen--virtually ensures that by the time it's actually right about something nobody will be listening anymore. On top of that, some very real and serious problems, like the amount of plastic winding up in the oceans, doesn't get much notice because plastic in suspension doesn't have the same visual shock appeal of projecting a Mad Max post-oil wasteland. I agree with the notion of taking care of our home so it pains me to watch that movement constantly shoot itself in the foot with its inability to treat things rationally.

As a species, best thing we can do is invest in research and figure out a way to get off this rock. We can have all the environmental preservation we want but as long as we're stuck here we're just a single good asteroid impact away from extinction.

Danth

[solleks]

Remember peak oil. Hahahahaha EXPERTS

[Evets]

I thought I read they figured out free energy and there is some huge multi country project going on to harness it now. Wish I could remember the name of it.. I think it was some kind of reworked tesla invention or something.

That aside I think the world should stop blaming countries doing their best already to be green and taxing them out the asses and instead blame places like China where a very large amount of the world's pollution is coming from... you can't even breathe the air from the pollutants and they dgaf.

[Horza]

We were being fed propaganda "science" videos which vividly illustrated how we'd all be breathing out of air tanks and how natural plants and trees would be a mere distant memory by the time we were old enough to have our own children

You're almost certainly being fed propaganda, Danth. However, I'm not so sure that it's of the "science" variety.

[Horza]

FYI: That movie is called Blade Runner.

[Tzug]

You trust NASA and the big energy companies? .... yikes

The Exxon memos are internal memos from the 70s and 80s from scientists hired by the company itself. It was not public information. In fact, in response to the memos, Exxon began a disinformation campaign, spending millions of dollars to undermine in the public sphere the findings of the very research it funded, because they understood it was a threat to their business model.

So you're right, but not in the way you intended: I do not trust the big energy companies, because they've been actively lying to us for years--lies which have been very effective considering so many people, such as you, have believed them, even when the company itself did not. I do, however, trust the internal memos of their own scientists that were never meant to be seen by the public.

[Danth]

You're almost certainly being fed propaganda, Danth. However, I'm not so sure that it's of the "science" variety.

It comes from all sides. That's why teaching children critical thinking is so important. Don't believe everything you read--and be especially wary of the stuff you WANT to believe because it's so much easier to be ensnared by that side of it. I'm not one of those "believe in nothing" nihilists, but any facts worth calling facts will withstand some scrutiny.

Danth

[solleks]

If you can't prove shit about dinosaurs and millions of years ago it's just a religion. You can't prove anything about space is just a shitty religion

[Tzug]

If you can't prove shit about dinosaurs and millions of years ago it's just a religion. You can't prove anything about space is just a shitty religion

Are you having a psychic break? What are you even talking about?

[Wonkie]

Remember peak oil. Hahahahaha EXPERTS

You guys are way too mad about the stuff they invent to sell you ads with.

Do you get mad at Brock Lesnar?

[solleks]

No I'm good. I'm saying modern science is the worst religion it's like a sci fi religion

[Canelek]

Faith becoming agitated while trying to trivialize science.

[solleks]

Modern science is worse tha n faith, its a placebo religion for mars anus blasting drug addicted demons

[Wonkie]

I thought I read they figured out free energy and there is some huge multi country project going on to harness it now. Wish I could remember the name of it.. I think it was some kind of reworked tesla invention or something.

That aside I think the world should stop blaming countries doing their best already to be green and taxing them out the asses and instead blame places like China where a very large amount of the world's pollution is coming from... you can't even breathe the air from the pollutants and they dgaf.

Tesla lore, sponsored by Coca-cola!

[Polycaster]

[QUOTE=Teppler;3072071] Humans have existed for only a couple thousand years. /QUOTE]

It's incredible these troglodyte asshat contrarians can feel so smug and superior while sounding so goddamn stupid. They literally know nearly nothing about an incredibly studied topic and proceed to educate everyone else on it.

Either he forgot to add "hundred" between 'couple' and 'thousand' or he is one of yours trying to discredit the opposition. No one believes humans are 2000 years old, as the Bible has humans appearing many generations before the birth of Jesus. Also, no one who believes in the Biblical account of Creation thinks the rest of the earth was created 100s of millions of years before humans as Teppler states, they believe everything was created within a similar time span.

In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars3). That’s a high tax rate.

QUOTE]


The mid 20th century tax rate isn't comparable to the current tax rate as they had a massive amount of exemptions back then; you don't honestly think the rich would ever allow themselves to be taxed at 90%+? ;)

made up example: tax rate is 90%, but they can exempt 50% of their income from it, so the effective rate is 45%.

I remember reading something that although tax rates have varied wildly, the amount as a % of GDP has remained fairly constant since 1940 when the amount skyrocketed.


[QUOTE=Tzug;3072128]Takes quite a bit of arrogance to think you know more about climate change than NASA, the Pentagon and the energy companies themselves (who have known about climate change since at least the 80s--this is not speculation; there are internal documents that prove it).

I also enjoy the people saying "the earth has been going through warming and cooling periods before" as if none of the above-mentioned agencies have never thought of that. "We have the scientific and technical expertise to put a man on the moon but we didn't see that objection! Thank you, message-board climate denier!"

If your belief on an issue happens to be at odds with the vest majority of people, especially the people most informed on the topic, AND it happens to (conveniently) also be the same belief that asks you to do nothing, it may be time to scrutinize that belief.

Moron. You are wrong. I've already provided links showing that most scientists do not believe that humans are the main agent of climate change. I've yet to see anything but arrogance and ignorance from your side.

[Horza]

Either he forgot to add "hundred" between 'couple' and 'thousand' or he is one of yours trying to discredit the opposition. No one believes humans are 2000 years old, as the Bible has humans appearing many generations before the birth of Jesus.

Welcome to the Project 1999 community.

[Smellybuttface]

Global warming is largely bullshit and a scam. The earth goes through ebbs and flows climate wise that exist over thousands of years. There's been time periods where it's been regularly hotter than this. There's been ice ages. We really don't effect that much as humans. To prove my point I'll bring up the idea that in the 80's it was said within 25 years we will have faced major damage, significant land would be eroded, places would become inhospitable etc.... none of that is even close to happening and we are 15 years past that date. They keep pushing it back another 30-50 years so that boogie man is always just on the horizon.

The arguments about the “ebbs and flows” are ones the scientists themselves used to test their theories. The only reason you even know about that is because they TRY to disprove their own theories. It’s called the scientific method. They’ve taken into account these ebbs and flows, the periods of heating and cooling, and STILL come to the conclusion that the effects we’re seeing now are man-made.

As for scientists “not knowing what the temperature was like millions of years ago,” they’re called glacial ice surveys. Without going into an in-depth discussion on the breakdown of carbon isotopes, I’ll leave it at “yes, we do know,” as well as how much carbon/methane was in the atmosphere.

[Wonkie]

The mid 20th century tax rate isn't comparable to the current tax rate as they had a massive amount of exemptions back then; you don't honestly think the rich would ever allow themselves to be taxed at 90%+? ;)

made up example: tax rate is 90%, but they can exempt 50% of their income from it, so the effective rate is 45%.

I remember reading something that although tax rates have varied wildly, the amount as a % of GDP has remained fairly constant since 1940 when the amount skyrocketed.


I was hoping someone smart would explain it. Can you delete this?

[Polycaster]

I was hoping someone smart would explain it. Can you delete this?

Not sure what you are saying. Are you implying that I'm not smart because I know about mid 20th century tax rates? I don't get the reasoning behind that, could you please explain.

[Wonkie]

Not sure what you are saying. Are you implying that I'm not smart because I know about mid 20th century tax rates? I don't get the reasoning behind that, could you please explain.

Exhibit A

[Polycaster]

The arguments about the “ebbs and flows” are ones the scientists themselves used to test their theories. The only reason you even know about that is because they TRY to disprove their own theories. It’s called the scientific method. They’ve taken into account these ebbs and flows, the periods of heating and cooling, and STILL come to the conclusion that the effects we’re seeing now are man-made.

Hey retard, I've already debunked this "scientific consensus" nonsense. Stop pretending its still a thing.

[Smellybuttface]

Hey retard, I've already debunked this "scientific consensus" nonsense. Stop pretending its still a thing.

Yes, you’ve “debunked” NASA, the UN, the US military, the National Academy of Scientists etc. by linking a Forbes article.

I’m shocked more articles don’t credit you with debunking this worldwide phenomenon.

[Teppler]

[QUOTE=Jubal;3072098]

Either he forgot to add "hundred" between 'couple' and 'thousand' or he is one of yours trying to discredit the opposition. No one believes humans are 2000 years old, as the Bible has humans appearing many generations before the birth of Jesus. Also, no one who believes in the Biblical account of Creation thinks the rest of the earth was created 100s of millions of years before humans as Teppler states, they believe everything was created within a similar time span.


Well it depends what theory you look at. The most popular 'out of africa' says a species of hominid left africa roughly 50,000 years ago and their brains transformed radically at that time. And they are the basis of modern day humans.

[Horza]

Yes, you’ve “debunked” NASA, the UN, the US military, the National Academy of Scientists etc. by linking a Forbes article.

I’m shocked more articles don’t credit you with debunking this worldwide phenomenon.

Sounds like you are one of those science cucks, taking peer-reviewed studies and the international community more seriously than a bunch of uneducated Everquest players.

[Smellybuttface]

[QUOTE=Polycaster;3072197]

Well it depends what theory you look at. The most popular 'out of africa' says a species of hominid left africa roughly 50,000 years ago and their brains transformed radically at that time. And they are the basis of modern day humans.


https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

Close, but off by about 150,000 years...

“ Current data suggest that modern humans evolved from archaic humans primarily in East Africa. A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people, including a rounded skull case and possibly a projecting chin.”

[Canelek]

It’s always fun when the 4chan conspiracy theorists go full 4chan.

[Horza]

It’s always fun when the 4chan conspiracy theorists go full 4chan.

Get off the science d, soy man.

[Teppler]

[QUOTE=Teppler;3072225]


https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

Close, but off by about 150,000 years...

“ Current data suggest that modern humans evolved from archaic humans primarily in East Africa. A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people, including a rounded skull case and possibly a projecting chin.”

It's all debatable. Some sources say 50,000 some say 150,000. Whatever, it's in the thousands.

[Asteria]

Mega Yikes! :eek:

[Jubal]

No one has said this. If you had a real argument you wouldn't need to strawman and ad hominem so hard.

https://principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/


The links in this thread took me about 10 minutes total to find and preview. It's not hard to find why you people are wrong; why do you insist on remaining wrong? Is it because your programming is more powerful than data? Where did this programming come from?

Took me 2 minutes to find that the author of your first article is an energy industry hack:

"In addition to running his businesses, Dr. Latour worked for such organizations as DuPont, Shell Oil, Dynamic Matrix Control Corporation and Aspen Tech.

A former board of directors for Advanced Extraction Technology, Dr. Latour was also an invited lecturer at Purdue University, the University of Texas and Lehigh University. He is a longstanding member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and the American Chemical Society. Dr. Latour additionally holds one U.S. patent for a polyester fiber that he invented.

During his career, Dr. Latour was responsible for developing the industry standard for APC/optimization technology for oil fractionation, FCC and general distillation. He also developed automation strategies for reformulated fuels, defined methods of justification of APC and Refinery Information Systems (RIS) and created APC and IT technology solutions, performance-based pricing and licensing methods, among other achievements. "

Took about 8 seconds to laugh at your second article, a 13 year old opinion piece on a garbage website chock full of pseudoscience. Is this the extent of your education on the topic?

[Polycaster]

Yes, you’ve “debunked” NASA, the UN, the US military, the National Academy of Scientists etc. by linking a Forbes article.

I’m shocked more articles don’t credit you with debunking this worldwide phenomenon.


Notice how all your sources are part of the government or made up of multiple governments. Strange how those with power are finding evidence that they need even more power. My sources were from real scientists not beholden to the government.

Also, I still haven't seen any links to evidence from your side, only arrogance and ignorance. Any objective observer would hand the debate victory to our side based upon that alone.

[Horza]

Took about 8 seconds to laugh at your second article, a 13 year old opinion piece on a garbage website chock full of pseudoscience. Is this the extent of your education on the topic?

What's unscientific about dangerous anti-vaccination propaganda? (https://principia-scientific.org/the-vaccine-hoax-is-over.html/)

[Asteria]

Teppler = Polycaster = Mickmoranis = Patriam = TheDudeAbides = Bubur = French Wizard = PieOats + 100 more

Horza = Wonkie = Pokesan = Cecily = Lanzelot = Jauna + 100 more

Prove me wrong

Fite me IRL :)

[Asteria]

And NO, forum account conspiracy theories are NOT doxxing :)

Nice try if you thought to make that complaint.

The average P99 player uses 1 forumquest account btw. :)

The 100+ account people think they are some kinda sociological genius? :confused:

[Polycaster]

Took me 2 minutes to find that the author of your first article is an energy industry hack:


Took about 8 seconds to laugh at your second article, a 13 year old opinion piece on a garbage website chock full of pseudoscience. Is this the extent of your education on the topic?


So? Everyone has an opinion and a perspective, strange how that only means they can't be right when its someone that disagrees with you shitlibs.

Great example of what I just said; you have an opinion based on your perspective and think it should be taken as fact rather than dismissed out of hand due to your biases.

Also, those 2 articles were targeted towards a specific post, I see none of you has been able to debunk my other links.

[Horza]

You shitlibs and your life-saving vaccines. :mad:

[Polycaster]

You shitlibs and your life-saving vaccines. :mad:


Changing the subject is a classic tactic of people who know they've lost the argument. You retards still haven't posted any evidence, only statements of faith. Please stay on topic; or do you want me to school you on yet another subject?

[solleks]

Pat yourself on the back ur on the right side of scifience. Yippeeee

[Tzug]

Notice how all your sources are part of the government or made up of multiple governments. Strange how those with power are finding evidence that they need even more power. My sources were from real scientists not beholden to the government.

Also, I still haven't seen any links to evidence from your side, only arrogance and ignorance. Any objective observer would hand the debate victory to our side based upon that alone.

Alex Epstein, the author of your Forbes article, is not a scientist. He runs a for-profit think tank relating to fossil fuels. You're skeptical of anything related to the government but willing to trust a single person whose livelihood is directly related to denying climate change.

Here's a direct response to his article: https://features.weather.com/course-climate-misinformation/

Here are actual scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals (read: not Forbes magazine) on the issue:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/355

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 (This last one is a synthesis on many of the different studies, all peer-reviewed, unlike Epstein's work.)

These studies demonstrate a range of 91-100% scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change. Most, however, are around 97%. A common refrain among climate change deniers is that this is a power grab. But this doesn't hold up: these scientists come from different countries and have many different sources of funding, as do the different government agencies from different countries, all of which overwhelmingly agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change. Besides, there's actually a huge financial incentive (see: Alex Epstein) to bring legitimate evidence to bear that climate change in fact is not real. If it was available, we would see it. Alas, unfortunately, the problem is very real.

I'll spare you the insult of "moron" that you issued to me, but either you need to get more informed on this topic or you should proceed with a bit more intellectual humility.

[Smellybuttface]

Alex Epstein, the author of your Forbes article, is not a scientist. He runs a for-profit think tank relating to fossil fuels. You're skeptical of anything related to the government but willing to trust a single person whose livelihood is directly related to denying climate change.

Here's a direct response to his article: https://features.weather.com/course-climate-misinformation/

Here are actual scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals (read: not Forbes magazine) on the issue:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/355

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 (This last one is a synthesis on many of the different studies, all peer-reviewed, unlike Epstein's work.)

These studies demonstrate a range of 91-100% scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change. Most, however, are around 97%. A common refrain among climate change deniers is that this is a power grab. But this doesn't hold up: these scientists come from different countries and have many different sources of funding, as do the different government agencies from different countries, all of which overwhelmingly agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change. Besides, there's actually a huge financial incentive (see: Alex Epstein) to bring legitimate evidence to bear that climate change in fact is not real. If it was available, we would see it. Alas, unfortunately, the problem is very real.

I'll spare you the insult of "moron" that you issued to me, but either you need to get more informed on this topic or you should proceed with a bit more intellectual humility.

I bow to you sir. Climate deniers, school is in session.

[solleks]

Almost all "science" is government funded grants peer reviewed is meaningless

[solleks]

You're just appealing to authority and a giant circle jerk sandwich u don't know sheeeeeet. Prove it

[Tzug]

Almost all "science" is government funded grants peer reviewed is meaningless

You're just appealing to authority and a giant circle jerk sandwich u don't know sheeeeeet. Prove it

You want me to prove it, but you don't believe in science, so there's literally no way for me to prove it to you. I won't waste my time. Meanwhile, please continue enjoying the many technological advancements that have developed as a result of scientific research. Must be they were right about all those other things but on this thing they're definitely full of shit. That seems likely.


These studies demonstrate a range of 91-100% scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change.

That should be anthropogenic, but it's kind of a funny mistake as is.

[Canelek]

It’s the new age of anti-intellectualism; cheered on and encouraged by a president who’s sole purpose is to accrue more money and influence.

But hey, infowars and breitbart feed these fine folks with enough information to bridge the logic gaps so they can continue to believe all sorts of wacky shit.

[Horza]

And NO, forum account conspiracy theories are NOT doxxing :)

Nice try if you thought to make that complaint.

Teppler has got people banned from the forums for less.

[AtomicFrog]

Almost all "science" is government funded grants peer reviewed is meaningless



SAAAAAAWING and a miss!

[Wallicker]

Where are the Donald Trump vs Greta Thungberg memes? This thread is weak!

[solleks]

You want me to prove it, but you don't believe in science, so there's literally no way for me to prove it to you. I won't waste my time. Meanwhile, please continue enjoying the many technological advancements that have developed as a result of scientific research. Must be they were right about all those other things but on this thing they're definitely full of shit. That seems likely.



That should be anthropogenic, but it's kind of a funny mistake as is.
Where my rocket ship space car at??

[solleks]

SAAAAAAWING and a miss!

Sorry did not mean to say "almost"

[Horza]

Where are the Donald Trump vs Greta Thungberg memes? This thread is weak!

https://i.imgur.com/ziVAVR5.jpg

[solleks]

Say what are some technological achievements the government has given us. Flouride in our water? Flu shots? Vaccines? Cell phone???

[AtomicFrog]

Say what are some technological achievements the government has given us. Flouride in our water? Flu shots? Vaccines? Cell phone???

Every year billions of dollars are given to institutions to fund additional research into finding a cure for cancer. Improvements have been made, but alas the cure has evaded humanity thus far.

But, I've never had cancer. So it probably doesn't even really exist.

That's you. That's what you sound like.

[solleks]

Logical fallacy. This is me.

Every year billions of dollars are stolen from the publicto fund additional research into fooling them into thinking space is real Improvements have been made, but alas the real evidence of spacehas evaded humanity thus far.

But, I've never seen any evidence of its existence So it probably doesn't even really exist.

[Asteria]

It’s the new age of anti-intellectualism; cheered on and encouraged by a president who’s sole purpose is to accrue more money and influence.

But hey, infowars and breitbart feed these fine folks with enough information to bridge the logic gaps so they can continue to believe all sorts of wacky shit.

Teppler + 100 accounts person also lives here on the forumquest and is desperate to get a "newsman" promotion working with Stephen Miller in the White House-JW or a better paying job with Ben Cuckpiro or Dave Rubin.

Elfsim forumquest is his roadway to success! What works "well" on EQ RnF will work wonders on the national and global level. :)

[Asteria]

Relax.. I'm only needling you Tepp 😘

[TomisFeline]

Logical fallacy. This is me.

Every year billions of dollars are stolen from the publicto fund additional research into fooling them into thinking space is real Improvements have been made, but alas the real evidence of spacehas evaded humanity thus far.

But, I've never seen any evidence of its existence So it probably doesn't even really exist.

I'm not sure I understand your post. are you saying you don't believe in space?

[Jimjam]

I'm not sure I understand your post. are you saying you don't believe in space?

Has pollution got so bad that you folks in the us can no longer star gaze? Here in Nottingham there is so much light pollution barely any stars are visible, they’re still faint even in the countryside. When I visit our mountains in Eradria or Lesvos, however, you can see the cosmos, like in the stories.

[Christina.]

Sorry you got trolled by tv

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

Has pollution got so bad that you folks in the us can no longer star gaze? Here in Nottingham there is so much light pollution barely any stars are visible, they’re still faint even in the countryside. When I visit our mountains in Eradria or Lesvos, however, you can see the cosmos, like in the stories.

Yup its total nut sack. I got rid of my kids telescope for looking at the moon etc, cant see crap anymore.

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

Say what are some technological achievements the government has given us. Flouride in our water? Flu shots? Vaccines? Cell phone???

Ask the people who live in Bikini Atoll

[Asteria]

Has pollution got so bad that you folks in the us can no longer star gaze? Here in Nottingham there is so much light pollution barely any stars are visible, they’re still faint even in the countryside. When I visit our mountains in Eradria or Lesvos, however, you can see the cosmos, like in the stories.

Stargazimg is actually quite spetacular in most of the countryside I have seen in a few regions of the US. :)

[suptoofs]

Has pollution got so bad that you folks in the us can no longer star gaze? Here in Nottingham there is so much light pollution barely any stars are visible, they’re still faint even in the countryside. When I visit our mountains in Eradria or Lesvos, however, you can see the cosmos, like in the stories.

My family is from Lesvos :) Plomari specifically.

[Teppler]

Space is an illusion.

[Asteria]

Space is an illusion.

Riiiduculous... :o

Your delusions of grandeur are the illusion

[Algustus]

I'm often tempted to explain the science of why we know human action is changing the climate, but for people that genuinely don't want to know, it's best to just suggest they buy themselves a ticket to Australia. Anyway, back to Norath.

[Teppler]

I'm often tempted to explain the science of why we know human action is changing the climate, but for people that genuinely don't want to know, it's best to just suggest they buy themselves a ticket to Australia. Anyway, back to Norath.

Here's a fact, the consequences that were pushed on people about global warming 30-50 years ago were a lie. They got it wrong. The science we already had explained to us. I should be underwater right now where I live according to the science you are talking about. They already got it wrong so many times and I'll give the benefit of the doubt.... getting it wrong had to do with miscalculations.... or an oversight in a hypothesis.... not to do with the money attached to it and convincing people their families are going to die to get that money.... Why is it right this time? Can you admit that science has had to revise this boogyman it's presenting us many times in order to fit reality? How can you be sure it won't be revised again when they were sure before?

So I simply have one question for the other side. What's the latest doomsday date? I need to get my raft ready for the inevitable water world. When I was younger I was told this was going to happen long ago. What's the latest hypothesis?

[Jubal]

fact, the consequences that were pushed on people... They got it wrong.

Cite sources to this brain shit please

[Smellybuttface]

Here's a fact, the consequences that were pushed on people about global warming 30-50 years ago were a lie. They got it wrong. The science we already had explained to us. I should be underwater right now where I live according to the science you are talking about. They already got it wrong so many times and I'll give the benefit of the doubt.... getting it wrong had to do with miscalculations.... or an oversight in a hypothesis.... not to do with the money attached to it and convincing people their families are going to die to get that money.... Why is it right this time? Can you admit that science has had to revise this boogyman it's presenting us many times in order to fit reality? How can you be sure it won't be revised again when they were sure before?

So I simply have one question for the other side. What's the latest doomsday date? I need to get my raft ready for the inevitable water world. When I was younger I was told this was going to happen long ago. What's the latest hypothesis?

Without seeing any sources to backup your claim that where you live “should” have been underwater by now, none of your questions can actually be answered, since it’s predicated on you simply making an unsourced claim that the science was wrong to begin with.

[Asteria]

Without seeing any sources to backup your claim that where you live “should” have been underwater by now, none of your questions can actually be answered, since it’s predicated on you simply making an unsourced claim that the science was wrong to begin with.

Exactly

Tepp is gaslighting and projecting as he knows he has a tremendous amount of religious fundamentalists on his side who think we are living in the "End of Days" and believe the rapture mythology of the Book of Revelations is 100% true and soon to happen. How do you have a rational argument with someone this indoctrinated and who tries to mislead people constantly? :o

[solleks]

I don't think it's the end of days. I don't care when it comes

[solleks]

I'm not sure I understand your post. are you saying you don't believe in space?

Yes i am saying that

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

So all the countries are colluding to fabricate space? The space station...everything?

The space station you can literally see from the ground with the naked eye as it passes over? How do you account for that? Did all the countries collude to have a plane with a massive lightbulb on the bottom flyover to keep the story legit?

Good grief.

I almost believe if a tycoon flew one of these people INTO space and showed them they would just say "Nah this isnt real you must of sedated me and brought me into a VR suite or something"

[solleks]

So all the countries are colluding to fabricate space? The space station...everything? yes, i don't know the details or care

The space station you can literally see from the ground with the naked eye as it passes over? How do you account for that? Did all the countries collude to have a plane with a massive lightbulb on the bottom flyover to keep the story legit? i don't account for it. Projection of some sort. Maybe a new wandering star. Who cares

Good grief.

I almost believe if a tycoon flew one of these people INTO space and showed them they would just say "Nah this isnt real you must of sedated me and brought me into a VR suite or something"

[Evets]

For all we know we're living in the matrix. No one knows for sure if anything nasa or the government has said is true... in fact they've been caught time and time again covering up and lying about pretty much everything... so why wouldn't you question anything they say and do now?

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

A new wandering star which wanders specifically around us consistantly.

If you don't care why are you even posting saying you don't believe it. Sounds like you do care.

You must believe in sattelites since they provide so many of the things you take for granted. How do they stay up? Some new technology which is being supressed which allows them to orbit our planet without being constantly refuelled.

Come now.

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

For all we know we're living in the matrix. No one knows for sure if anything nasa or the government has said is true... in fact they've been caught time and time again covering up and lying about pretty much everything... so why wouldn't you question anything they say and do now?

Ah sorry i see what's happening here :) I thought this was a serious discussion. Gotcha :)

[Asteria]

For all we know we're living in the matrix. No one knows for sure if anything nasa or the government has said is true... in fact they've been caught time and time again covering up and lying about pretty much everything... so why wouldn't you question anything they say and do now?

Imagine judging P99 from playing only /gems in tunnelquest

Imagine judging real life on 2020 Earth from Mom & Dad's house on the internet.

[solleks]

The iss is 1.5 larger than 747 but 50 times gather away. A 747 at 5 miles is smaller than a pencil eraser. Iss is brightest star is sky. Footage of iss shows no brightness

[solleks]

I do care but some people can't get out of their box it might take years I'm just sharing my perspective

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

Honest question. Would you share with your employer or friends that you do not believe in space? If not, why.

[solleks]

A new wandering star which wanders specifically around us consistantly.

If you don't care why are you even posting saying you don't believe it. Sounds like you do care.

You must believe in sattelites since they provide so many of the things you take for granted. How do they stay up? Some new technology which is being supressed which allows them to orbit our planet without being constantly refuelled.

Come now.

How do satellites stay working in such a harsh environment for 20+ years no maintenance. Global communication easily on flat earth.

[solleks]

Honest question. Would you share with your employer or friends that you do not believe in space? If not, why.

I wouldn't share the info with anyone in a position of power over others tey are usually the weakest mentally

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

They only last 5-15 years. Arguably under the sea is a harsher envoiroment than space. Radiation shielding isn't anything new. We got pretty good at that after the manhatten project.

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

I wouldn't share the info with anyone in a position of power over others tey are usually the weakest mentally

Simple answer: No you wouldnt tell your friends you dont believe in space.

Good move. I wouldn't either.

[solleks]

Yes I've told many people. I am smart so they respect my opinion

[solleks]

Science seems upset

[Hyppon]

People here bite HARD on troll posts. HARD.

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

As in someone you consider a friend. To their faces. In real life.

[Evets]

Imagine judging P99 from playing only /gems in tunnelquest

Imagine judging real life on 2020 Earth from Mom & Dad's house on the internet.

Are you speaking about yourself or?

It's strange cause you quoted me ... My main is level 50 with the best gear and I assure you I don't spend much time in the tunnel or playing gems when in game. Currently at work to pay my mortgage and kick ass ZR2 ect. I sincerely hope you have the same quality of life.

As for questioning everything instead of just believing what i'm told by organisations that we all know are lying and have lied to us especially dealing with climate change and regarding space ... Just keep on following the wolf in sheeps clothing for all I care all I hear is BAAAHHHHH.

[solleks]

As in someone you consider a friend. To their faces. In real life.

Yes.

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

I see. Ah well just as you apparantly do not believe in errr everything i do not believe you did admitted such to your friends and you cannot prove to me you did (to paraphrase yourself).

Impasse reached. Moving on.

[solleks]

I did actually i told some surveyors to check the ocean shore line see if it's flat for miles. They already know that the answer is it is flat they've been surveying for a while. Elevations don't curve water doesn't curve. Optically where we live is measurably flat. There are settings on surveyor equipment gps to go into a curved mode if some sortbut that is just an algorithm to spit out the same answers. It's never used

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

:D

[solleks]

Glad your mood has improved

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

Yes the grand reveal of the surveyors showed me who is boss :D Great stuff

[solleks]

You asked if i told someone. I told land surveyors. They did not laugh at me and they are still my friends. Glad this info please you.

[solleks]

Easily prove my opinion wrong with anything but circumstantial evidence. Is the earth moving? Had the poke to equator inertia difference been measured? Someone triangulated an item in the sky incorrectly.

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

If you can prove to me you told these "surveyors". You can't.

Prove me wrong is just a poor come back in general. An intelligent discussion requires certain levels of assumed trust. When you cannot argue your point well and always fall back on "prove me wrong" it just makes people want to quit.

Which is what i'm doing. You appear to be under the illusion i'm getting annoyed or worked up over this. Incorrect. I'm just taking part in an interesting discussion.

Made disinteresting by "prove me wrong"

If you are seriously going to expect people to do all the work and prove you right then you need to give a little back.

[cd288]

This dude has to be trolling right? There's no way anyone is so stupid as to not believe space exists lol

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

<shrug>

[solleks]

Social shaming, nice

[solleks]

I just told u facts about the iss and how it wouldnt be visible at those distances and how the logic of it reflecting massive amounts of light but being normal in videos. U ignore. I told u how no one prove earth movements, ignore. I tell u find a nice spot on sone water and check it flat. U know it's flat. Thanks for hanging out

[solleks]

Just expressing my opinion why climate change is a fart. U da man.

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

Hah yeah. You showed me alright :D

Your talents are wasted here. With such convincing evidence it's a wonder NASA even exists!

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

Well anyway, I observe your right to believe whatever you want wether or not i believe it. It doesnt mean i have to "respect" your beliefs but I acknowledge your right to believe it.

Lets call it a draw. Because there is no other outcome :)

[solleks]

Got moon landing data?

[cd288]

I just told u facts about the iss and how it wouldnt be visible at those distances and how the logic of it reflecting massive amounts of light but being normal in videos. U ignore. I told u how no one prove earth movements, ignore. I tell u find a nice spot on sone water and check it flat. U know it's flat. Thanks for hanging out

Lol I'm so happy people like this guy exist because if it wasn't for stupid people we'd all have the same amount of shit

[Horza]

I just told u facts about the iss and how it wouldnt be visible at those distances and how the logic of it reflecting massive amounts of light but being normal in videos. U ignore. I told u how no one prove earth movements, ignore. I tell u find a nice spot on sone water and check it flat. U know it's flat. Thanks for hanging out

Stay in school, kids.

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

No. But then again i also dont have data to prove Joseph Stalin was not a crocodile. Does that mean until proven otherwise he was? I'm confused where this is going.

Although it would explain why Stalin was so angry maybe? Dunno

[solleks]

I think social shaming and appealing to authority is a weaker argument than what i have

[suptoofs]

Yes I've told many people. I am smart so they respect my opinion

This was the best line in the thread.

Truthfully why is brave solleks even wasting his time on us plebeians when he could be shaping the world?

[cd288]

This was the best line in the thread.

Truthfully why is brave solleks even wasting his time on us plebeians when he could be shaping the world?

Lollll

This thread has become so amazing. I never thought people like him actually existed, I always thought it was just trolling

[Smellybuttface]

How do satellites stay working in such a harsh environment for 20+ years no maintenance. Global communication easily on flat earth.

There's the one we were missing. I was worried you had a semblance of rationality, but thankfully I was proven wrong.

[solleks]

*bows* it is my pleasure to serve this forum

[Danth]

it was just trolling

It is. One indicator is how often the troll falls back to some variant of, "it doesn't exist!" In this case it's being used quite a lot. An actual argument can explain away seemingly contrary problems without having to outright ignore them.

I've seen some of the more imaginative flat earther (trolls) try to explain things like why longitude is harder to figure than latitude or why long-distance great circle routes save miles. In rare cases the mental gymnastics can become amusing when you get one who has a good wit and doesn't keep falling back to the default "it's not real it's a conspiracy" refrain.

Danth

[suptoofs]

Lollll

This thread has become so amazing. I never thought people like him actually existed, I always thought it was just trolling

Another highlight was linking a Forbes opinion piece by Alex Epstein. LOL my sides.

Lunch is over, see later pals.

[Wonkie]

People here bite HARD on troll posts. HARD.

[Canelek]

This is some Internal Confessions from My First AcidTrip: A Different Perspective type of shit. This is cute and all, but this line of quasi-thinking is why we currently have a president who selected CEOs to lead important government positions (as opposed to experienced in-field experts). Of course, most of these fine folks have quit or were fired for acting against their boss in some form or another.

Back to the night sky...

In the early to mid 20th century, pollution was fucking terrible, thanks to widespread industrialization and population growth. Things improved dramatically since the Clean Air Act of 1970. Further restrictions on industries like coal, petroleum, etc further improved our air, water, and our environment in general.

Here is a list of environmental things rolled back recently:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html

To his credit, trump has not been shy about his goals when it comes to his pals in the coal and oil industries. Hell, even oil-man Bush and Bush Jr were never so bold.

Of course, since trump is a demagogue, all logical reason becomes jibberjabber and is replaced with drunken chants of U.S.A. U.S.A.... yay us, I guess.

[Canelek]

And yeah, Sollecks is a, as Dodge Motor Co would say, Professional-Grade troll. Good work!

[Polycaster]

Alex Epstein, the author of your Forbes article, is not a scientist. He runs a for-profit think tank relating to fossil fuels. You're skeptical of anything related to the government but willing to trust a single person whose livelihood is directly related to denying climate change.

1
Here's a direct response to his article: https://features.weather.com/course-climate-misinformation/

Here are actual scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals (read: not Forbes magazine) on the issue:

2
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/355

3
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

4
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

5
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

6
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

7
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

8
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

9
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 (This last one is a synthesis on many of the different studies, all peer-reviewed, unlike Epstein's work.)

These studies demonstrate a range of 91-100% scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change. Most, however, are around 97%. A common refrain among climate change deniers is that this is a power grab. But this doesn't hold up: these scientists come from different countries and have many different sources of funding, as do the different government agencies from different countries, all of which overwhelmingly agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change. Besides, there's actually a huge financial incentive (see: Alex Epstein) to bring legitimate evidence to bear that climate change in fact is not real. If it was available, we would see it. Alas, unfortunately, the problem is very real.

I'll spare you the insult of "moron" that you issued to me, but either you need to get more informed on this topic or you should proceed with a bit more intellectual humility.

I commend you for making the attempt at reasoned argument. The fact it took 14 pages for you people to do so says a lot about the real basis for your beliefs. Not facts, but feelings.

1
Nothing you say addresses my argument, in fact some of it supports it. The Forbes article wasn't relying on the author's scientific knowledge, he interviewed people and it contains quotes from scientists who say they were listed amongst the 97%who think humans aren't causing significant global warming when in fact they do not believe it. The arguments stated in my links against the nonsensical "97%" claims still hold.


2
Not sure what this is supposed to show, but its not related to global warming.

3
Directly refuted by my links.

4
Directly refuted by my links. Pro AGW scientists are paid to write lots of studies, so they have lots of studies. Basically, this article claims that the more articles someone posts the more "votes" they get on whether something is true or not. Truth is not determined by popular vote.

5
"a 26.3% response rate [to emails sent to AMS members]"

"There has been tension in recent years among American Meteorological Society (AMS) members who hold different views on climate change (Schweizer et al. 2011). Some members have expressed that their views, which question the view that human-caused global warming was occurring, are treated with hostility within the AMS (Schweizer et al. 2011)."

In other words, up to 3/4 of the members might disagree with the "consensus" of the 1 in 4 who responded to the survey. They never even say what % of that 1/4 agrees, so it could be as little as 51% of 1/4, which means that 1/8 of AMS might actually be supportive. Very suspicious they don't put that rate in the abstract...

"Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all Earth scientists (82%)."

So the most relevant field (meteorology) is only 64% supportive of man-made global warming. Modify that further downward due to the political and social pressure, and you see why we think you people are crazy to think there is any kind of consensus.

"...data from the present survey found that only 59% of AMS members agree that 81%–100% of climate scientists think that global warming is happening (Maibach et al. 2012)."

So even scientists within this skewed sample don't have a consensus that there is a consensus...

6
Same reliance on the "97%" claims that have been debunked. Same preponderance of government sources.

7
Refuted by my links.

==

Most of what your argument seems to be "sure you debunked the 97% studies, but here are the links to those studies you debunked so let's pretend they now make sense." They don't. Reread the 2 articles I provided, note how in some cases they specifically mention your studies and explain how they are invalid.

Thank you for at least attempting reasoned discourse. The more of it that happens, the more people will agree that AGW is a hoax. Perhaps this is why you people are so loathe to engage in logical argument...

[Polycaster]

I did actually i told some surveyors to check the ocean shore line see if it's flat for miles. They already know that the answer is it is flat they've been surveying for a while. Elevations don't curve water doesn't curve. Optically where we live is measurably flat. There are settings on surveyor equipment gps to go into a curved mode if some sortbut that is just an algorithm to spit out the same answers. It's never used

I'm pretty sure you are playing 24D chess with the smooth brains, but just in case people don't realize that: the shoreline is flat ("continental shelf") because that was the coast line about 12,000 years ago when a lot of the world's water was locked up in glaciers.



I think social shaming and appealing to authority is a weaker argument than what i have

Yep, there it is. 24D chess. ;)
Well played sir, well played.

[solleks]

I'm pretty sure you are playing 24D chess with the smooth brains, but just in case people don't realize that: the shoreline is flat ("continental shelf") because that was the coast line about 12,000 years ago when a lot of the world's water was locked up in glaciers.

GASPS



Yep, there it is. 24D chess. ;)
Well played sir, well played.

[TomisFeline]

homeboy east coast continental shelf is largely from deposited earth after the land was rocked by glaciers moving across it. it is largely a result of the glaciers dissipation and movement, and it didn't exist as we know it before then. unsure what you were saying by your statement, but gotta at least dip your toes in some amateur geologic history before saying things like that.

[Horza]

The Forbes article wasn't relying on the author's scientific knowledge, he interviewed people and it contains quotes from scientists who say they were listed amongst the 97%who think humans aren't causing significant global warming when in fact they do not believe it. The arguments stated in my links against the nonsensical "97%" claims still hold.

97% of which scientists say they think humans aren't causing significant global warming? Please do try to keep your contrarian bullshit straight.

[Nirgon]

97% of which scientists say they think humans aren't causing significant global warming? Please do try to keep your contrarian bullshit straight.

Do you ever get tired of trying to bullshit people on here? Have you ever considered these people are trying to tax us over nothing to take our money to fund more political stunt bs like this?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions




Here's some good stuff

2013 -
Climate change is lowering the water levels in the Great Lakes!

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/does-lake-michigans-record-low-water-level-mark-beginning-of-new-era-for-great-lakes-216429601.html/

2020-
Now it's making them too high!
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/01/09/lakefront-homes-threatened-along-lake-michigan-record-high-water-levels-and-strong-winds/4425372002/





What's your degree in again dude? Anonymous posting on these boards and shilling for corrupt politicians?

[Horza]

Nirgon is telling us about shilling for corrupt politicians while citing an article from a fringe think tank funded by the Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil, and Philip Morris. :D

[Horza]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute runs ads saying 'The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker.' A professor objects, saying CEI deliberately misrepresents his research. (https://www.factcheck.org/2006/05/scientist-to-cei-you-used-my-research/)

[Jimjam]

My family is from Lesvos :) Plomari specifically.

Kali mera!

My in laws are from Asamatos. Your family are from an incredible island and you should be proud to be a Lesbian.

[Polycaster]

97% of which scientists say they think humans aren't causing significant global warming? Please do try to keep your contrarian bullshit straight.

I misspoke. It should read "the 97% who think humans are causing significant global warming when in fact they do not believe it."

Thank you for your editing efforts.

[Polycaster]

I knew I could never convince those who were indoctrinated so heavily, but the intellectual limitations upon such people also makes them great foils. Much like the 'dumb white guy who needs to be explained to by the smart female or smart PoC' advertising formula, you were part of the show. Those who could be swayed will note that my arguments and sources were far superior to what little was offered by the opposing side.

So I'm going to fade out from the AGW portion of this thread, except to leave a present that might explain a bit about why so many can believe exactly the same nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqib9mg3_J4

[Nirgon]

Nirgon is telling us about shilling for corrupt politicians while citing an article from a fringe think tank funded by the Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil, and Philip Morris. :D

There's gonna be an ice age! There's global warming! Just kidding it's climate change!

Hey, here's a REAL WEIRD thought. The Earth's climate changed without us even existing yet. How much do we owe in back taxes? LOL

[Smellybuttface]

Do you ever get tired of trying to bullshit people on here? Have you ever considered these people are trying to tax us over nothing to take our money to fund more political stunt bs like this?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions




Here's some good stuff

2013 -
Climate change is lowering the water levels in the Great Lakes!

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/does-lake-michigans-record-low-water-level-mark-beginning-of-new-era-for-great-lakes-216429601.html/

2020-
Now it's making them too high!
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/01/09/lakefront-homes-threatened-along-lake-michigan-record-high-water-levels-and-strong-winds/4425372002/





What's your degree in again dude? Anonymous posting on these boards and shilling for corrupt politicians?

“ In fact, six of the top 11 wettest years occurred in the last decade. So it's no shock that Lake Michigan water levels tied the record July level last summer, when it was more than 2½ feet above the long-term average for the month.”


https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather

“ Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the U.S. has seen increases in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, heavy downpours, and in some regions, severe floods and droughts.”

They stopped using the term “global warming” because people couldn’t grasp the concept that weather and climate are two separate things. Weather refers to short-term changes in the atmosphere, climate describes what the weather is like over a long period of time in a specific area. Changes in the climate INFLUENCE weather, ergo, a warming of Earth’s overall climate can lead to drastic changes in the weather .
TL DR: Climate change accounts for weather patterns causing Great Lakes levels rising and falling.

[Hyppon]

I love when people pretend to read science articles to prove/disprove their pointless points.

(X) Doubt

[Hyppon]

They stopped using the term “global warming” because people couldn’t grasp the concept that weather and climate are two separate things. Weather refers to short-term changes in the atmosphere, climate describes what the weather is like over a long period of time in a specific area. Changes in the climate INFLUENCE weather, ergo, a warming of Earth’s overall climate can lead to drastic changes in the weather .

The fun thing is, we know who the idiots are when they repeat the same stupid line "LOL REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS CALLED GLOBAL WARMING TAEK THAT LIBRALS!!!!" So not only does the change help people who were on the cusp understand, it helps us figure out which individuals are helpless and should be quarantined.

[Horza]

I knew I could never convince those who were indoctrinated so heavily, but the intellectual limitations upon such people also makes them great foils. Much like the 'dumb white guy who needs to be explained to by the smart female or smart PoC' advertising formula, you were part of the show.

Hold on a minute, am I the woman or the person of color in this needlessly political tangent?

[Canelek]

Countering "political correctness" with alt-right 4chan impotent rage, anti-science and conspiracy theories. That'll tech dem librawls.

[Hyppon]

Hold on a minute, am I the woman or the person of color in this needlessly political tangent?

I believe this is what they call "lashing out irrationally"

[Nirgon]

Hey good thing no one has any real proof suggesting we are going to cause a friggin apocalypse. Time to hand all our money over to Al Gore. Might as well go around making shit up like every scientist thinks that is going to happen when they don't believe us because of decades of them being wrong about their predictions.

[Horza]

Get good, science cucks. What even is a climate? You have no proof Al Gore really exists.

[loramin]

You have no proof Al Gore really exists.

Best argument to a climate change denier ever :)

[Tzug]

1
Nothing you say addresses my argument, in fact some of it supports it. The Forbes article wasn't relying on the author's scientific knowledge, he interviewed people and it contains quotes from scientists who say they were listed amongst the 97%who think humans aren't causing significant global warming when in fact they do not believe it. The arguments stated in my links against the nonsensical "97%" claims still hold.


I read the Forbes article very closely and it's completely insubstantial. As I mention elsewhere below, Epstein does not debunk the "97%" claim; he attempts to debunk one of the studies (Cook). He does not address any of the other studies. With that said, I'll dig into his attempted debunking of the Cook study.

From the start, he misrepresents Cook's article. Epstein writes, 'Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.'

This is not accurate. Cook surveyed almost 12,000 papers. He did not find that 97% of them endorsed AGW. He found that "among abstracts expressing a position on AGW" 97% of them endorsed AGW. This is, ultimately, not that big of a deal, but it already reveals Epstein as a lackluster scholar and continues to undermine his credibility, which is already fairly low considering his vested financial interests and lack of scientific training.

As for, as you say, the scientists "who say they were listed amongst the 97%who think humans aren't causing significant global warming when in fact they do not believe it: Epstein says in his article that "numerous" scientists "protested." The number of scientists who "protest" was 7. 7 out of almost 12,000. I wonder why Epstein chose to write "numerous" rather than "7"? While technically correct, "numerous" has a bit of dramatic flair that "7" doesn't quite capture.

Now let's dig more deeply into some of these scientists. It is not entirely true, as you suggest, that "they do not believe [AGW]." The first scientist, Scafetta, writes: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most." This is not exactly a slam-dunk debunking of AGW.

Richard Tol, one of the seven, and also one of the people quoted by Epstein, is a firm believer in AGW. He protested about some of his article's classification, and took some umbrage at the project in general, but he is certainly not a climate change denier. In his own words, "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral."

So Tol is actually complaining that some of his papers were excluded AND that one of them was categorized too weakly! ("I would rate 3 as strong endorsement with quantification...of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement.") Of the papers that weren't included, "one strongly endorses AGW." He also argues that the "solar hypothesis" advocated by the aforementioned Scafetta among others "is a load of bull." Not exactly someone I would describe as not believing in AGW, despite your earlier claim.

Another among the 7 is Willie Soon who, two years later (this article was published in 2013) would be exposed for taking over a million dollars in funding from various interest groups. Oops!

So you've got 7 protesting scientists (remember: "numerous") out of literally thousands, and among those seven, one believes in AGW, just a smaller percentage of culpability, maybe closer to 40-50%, one who very strongly believes in AGW and in fact thinks the solar theory is "bullshit" and one who at the time of this "protest" is getting paid by the powers at be.

This is pretty weak stuff.

The fact that you keep saying the "97% claims" shows you're either being disingenuous, or you misunderstand the research. There isn't a single claim about 97%. The studies I linked to all used different methodologies to determine the scientific consensus. One study came up with a 91% consensus, one came up with a 100% consensus, one came up with 93% consensus and four came up with either 97% or 97-98%. These are all different studies. Even if I found your Forbes article compelling, which I don't (and yes, I read it all, along with your other link), it does not engage with the full breadth of the research on this.


2
Not sure what this is supposed to show, but its not related to global warming.


It is related to global warming, but the link opens to a page to Letters to the Editor. To have full access to the magazine (Science), you either need to be a subscriber or (as is my case) get access through an academic library.


3
Directly refuted by my links.


Not only is the Anderegg not "directly" refuted in your links, it isn't mentioned in either article at all. The Forbes article only mentions the Cooks study. It doesn't engage with any of the other studies, including this one.


4
Directly refuted by my links. Pro AGW scientists are paid to write lots of studies, so they have lots of studies. Basically, this article claims that the more articles someone posts the more "votes" they get on whether something is true or not. Truth is not determined by popular vote.


This is wrong on many levels. Scientists are not paid to write lots of studies, or at least not by journals. In fact, many scientific journals require you to pay them to submit your articles, because, not surprisingly, these are fairly niche journals read primarily by scientists--they are not, despite what you seem to think, money makers. Scientists are paid, usually, by universities, though their research is often aided by grants. Then there are of course scientists employed by private companies, such as the scientists of Exxon who did extensive research in the 70s on global warming and wrote about it in internal memos, as has been mentioned before in this thread.

Of course in a very literal sense you are right that what is popular is not necessarily true. But it's kind of a funny post-hoc way to try and dismiss a preponderance of scientific evidence. This is like a murder defense saying "well, simply because there are 100 eye-witnesses doesn't mean my client is guilty." Of course it's literally true, but as a counter-argument it's pretty thin.

The method you're trying to use to dismiss this preponderance of evidence--that scientists are paid to write these articles (again, a bit of a nebulous claim)--also begins to break down when you consider the many different sources of funding for scientists in different fields, in both private firms and public agencies, from different governments, etc.

It's also odd to me that you dismiss the opinion of scientists because (so you say) they're paid to write these articles but you do not dismiss the opinion of Epstein, who was definitely paid for the Forbes article and, more importantly, is paid by his for-profit think tank. Why is it that the scientists' opinions are invalidated by the presence of money, but Epstein's is not?


5
"a 26.3% response rate [to emails sent to AMS members]"

"There has been tension in recent years among American Meteorological Society (AMS) members who hold different views on climate change (Schweizer et al. 2011). Some members have expressed that their views, which question the view that human-caused global warming was occurring, are treated with hostility within the AMS (Schweizer et al. 2011)."

In other words, up to 3/4 of the members might disagree with the "consensus" of the 1 in 4 who responded to the survey. They never even say what % of that 1/4 agrees, so it could be as little as 51% of 1/4, which means that 1/8 of AMS might actually be supportive. Very suspicious they don't put that rate in the abstract...


Indeed, they might all disagree with the consensus, though that is pretty unlikely. If you look at the methodology of the study, they emailed over 7000 people and about 1850 responded. That's a pretty solid sample size. Even if you if think that's not true, and you think that 24% is too small to be meaningful (though most polling actually relies in a smaller percentage of responses), one way we could corroborate those numbers is with other studies using different methodologies. Which, fortunately, we have! I linked many of them to you. Surprise, surprise, their results line up.

As for the "they never even say what % of what 1/4 agrees," I'm a little baffled by this comment. Of course they do. That's the entire point of the study. It's right there in "Results":

"Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the nonpublishing climate scientists and nonpublishing meteorologists/ atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively."

You must have only read the Abstract.



"Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all Earth scientists (82%)."

So the most relevant field (meteorology) is only 64% supportive of man-made global warming. Modify that further downward due to the political and social pressure, and you see why we think you people are crazy to think there is any kind of consensus.


Interesting (and telling) here that you don't quote the very next lines: "Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas, such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%)." To use your own words, "very suspicious." You obviously opened the study and began to read it, and yet you chose to exclude this information. Why? I'd like to be generous, but it's difficult to interpret this as anything but intellectual dishonesty.

How much modifying do you suggest due to this perceived political and social pressure? 5%? 10%? 64%? This methodology seems very scientific and rigorous and not self-interestingly convenient at all.


6
Same reliance on the "97%" claims that have been debunked. Same preponderance of government sources.


Debunked where? So far you've posted one article from Forbes written by the owner of a for-profit fossil fuels think tank who attempts to debunk one article, the Cook, and does not mention any of the others. Even if I granted you the Cook, which I don't, but even if I did, you still have not debunked any of the others.


7
Refuted by my links.


The Carlton study was published in September 2015. The Forbes article by Epstein was published January 2015. Maybe I should be listening to this Epstein fellow about scientific matters, considering he's evidently discovered time travel!

[Jimjam]

Man made global warming maybe under debate but man, the above post made quite the roasting.

[Smellybuttface]

Man made global warming maybe under debate but man, the above post made quite the roasting.

I would say the above post proves it’s very much not under debate. To say it’s under debate would be like saying Solleks claim earlier that “space isn’t real” is up for debate.

[solleks]

No one is right it's just pick a team and fight for it (use autism when needed)

[solleks]

But yes space isn't a sci fi butt bkasting fantasy like on tv, the plane we live on is measurable flat. Sorry u guys dont get the concept

[solleks]

Observations suggest that the majority of the mass-energy in the observable universe is dark energy, a type of vacuum energy that is poorly understood


Sorry you didn't get to drive space cars with your boyfriend to mars

[solleks]

suggest that the majority of the mass-energy in the observable universe is dark energy, a type of vacuum energy that is poorly understood

Everything about space works mathematically because of dark matter and you want to ride the space train to mars because of global warming. Dumb.

[Hazek]

According to crazy conspiracy theorists, climate change is caused by man and the surface of the ocean is convex. Lmao

[Natewest1987]

Who helped you figure out how to sign up for a forum?

lollll

[Natewest1987]

I don't think anyone deny's climate change and that it is man made. I don't think all of you have read enough to know that almost all reasonable scientists without an agenda explain that there isn't enough science/data to make any bold claims. As far as i seen all they can point to is more co2 in the atmosphere, but can't attribute it to any direct problem. ie global warming. Any reasonable scientist will tell you it's possible, but there isn't enough data.

Now, when you see big money pushing the world will end in 10 years, over and over again every 10 years for the last 40 years, well. Thats how you get donald trump, thats how you get climate denial. weak wrists etc. bad information, group think. big money. greta. All to blame for todays big oofs.

weak wrists hmm

[aaezil]

Yall mofos need scientific consensus

[Jimjam]

But yes space isn't a sci fi butt bkasting fantasy like on tv, the plane we live on is measurable flat. Sorry u guys dont get the concept

The idea of the Earth’s surface being an infinitely scrolling two dimensional loop is really interesting. The word ‘plane’ probably does better justice to the idea than ‘flat’. Earth is demonstrably lumpy (unless you live in Poland or the great plains).

3d is a really helpful way to model infinitely scrolling 2d loops, but premier scientists broadly consider that space is much more complicated than 3 dimensions. Flat earth theory is useful as a tool to broaden our horizons of how 3d models need to be reconsidered.

[solleks]

Yes like all video games the land might have mountains or holes but the elevations are on a flat plane and it is physically measurable and provable. (Water)

[Jimjam]

Yes like all video games the land might have mountains or holes but the elevations are on a flat plane and it is physically measurable and provable. (Water)

How do you explain rain drops?

[solleks]

I dont ever

[solleks]

If you're trying to say surface tension makes oceans stick to a ball on one perfect elevation thats fine but it doesn't change the fact that oceans are flat so its null and void

[Bhairava]

science is extremely gay, nerds are the proof of that