Reminder: hold onto your butts

[maskedmelon]

thanks pals. glad i was able to pick up what you were putting down, mick [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] and SC, the growing leftist religiosity extends well beyond racism and is readily apparent in virtually all the hot button topics from assault to climate change. both of the latter are very real issues, but when we elevate victimhood as sacrament and regard skepticism as heresy, we're not treading a path of progress.

[Lune]

Climate change religiosity by the left is a myth perpetuated by the Fox News type.

Other than college campus liberals, who are just stupid about everything, most people on the left treat climate change skepticism like they treat skepticism about how kidneys function or the structure of DNA: These are exceptionally well-established theories and you better have some god damned exceptional evidence to support a more plausible alternative hypothesis, or reject the current one.

That evidence does not exist.

Ironically, many of the half-baked criticisms that people come up with resemble those employed by evangelicals in their limp-dicked attempts to dispute evolution, like irreducible complexity or intelligent design.

It should also raise an eyebrow that most of the scientists skeptical of climate change are paid off by fossil fuel companies. There are very few wealthy stakeholders in climate change regulation.

However, that doesn't make the notion of a "Green New Deal" any less retarded. That would be as big a waste of money as a wall on the mexican border.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Climate change religiosity by the left is a myth perpetuated by the Fox News type.

Other than college campus liberals, who are just stupid about everything, most people on the left treat climate change skepticism like they treat skepticism about how kidneys function or the structure of DNA: These are exceptionally well-established theories and you better have some god damned exceptional evidence to support a more plausible alternative hypothesis, or reject the current one.

That evidence does not exist.

Ironically, many of the half-baked criticisms that people come up with resemble those employed by evangelicals in their limp-dicked attempts to dispute evolution, like irreducible complexity or intelligent design.

It should also raise an eyebrow that most of the scientists skeptical of climate change are paid off by fossil fuel companies. There are very few wealthy stakeholders in climate change regulation.

However, that doesn't make the notion of a "Green New Deal" any less retarded. That would be as big a waste of money as a wall on the mexican border.

no, climate change religiosity is a notion I've advanced on my own and displayed by you here in your dismissal of valid criticism as rightwing propaganda. I clearly stated that it is a reality. The problems however a numerous. We have a very poor grasp on many aspects of climate change including, but most certainly not limited to:

1. The magnitude of our contribution, despite broad agreement that it exists.
2. The efficacy of any countermeasures we might employ, complicated not the least by varying it states of economic development and urbanization of major players.
3. The actual effects we can anticipate despite a robust collection of climate models due to the amplification of error across time.

Closing the door to discussion is precisely the sort of religious zealotry im talking about. it's unscientific.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, climate change religiosity is a notion I've advanced on my own and displayed by you here in your dismissal of valid criticism as rightwing propaganda. I clearly stated that it is a reality. The problems however a numerous. We have a very poor grasp on many aspects of climate change including, but most certainly not limited to:

1. The magnitude of our contribution, despite broad agreement that it exists.
2. The efficacy of any countermeasures we might employ, complicated not the least by varying it states of economic development and urbanization of major players.
3. The actual effects we can anticipate despite a robust collection of climate models due to the amplification of error across time.

Closing the door to discussion is precisely the sort of religious zealotry im talking about. it's unscientific.

#2 and #3 have nothing to do with the existence of climate change which is the topic at hand and where the skepticism is undue. I agree with #2 and #3. Rightwing propaganda purports that the entire thing, climate change as a whole, is a hoax, which is the most retarded position one can have. We know:

1. The climate is becoming hotter.
2. Humans are responsible for this abrupt and sizable change.
3. It's too late to quickly reverse.

We do not know: All the effects of this change going forward.

Every major economic stakeholder in the United States except renewable energy companies, which are poor and sparse, stands to benefit from muddying the waters on this. Your Republican representatives don't care what the truth is or what the evidence says, they only care about what the people who are paying their bribes want. And the people paying their bribes want to pollute.

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It should also raise an eyebrow that most of the scientists skeptical of climate change are paid off by fossil fuel companies. There are very few wealthy stakeholders in climate change regulation.

Can scientists also be paid off by Democratic politicians? There are a massive amount of wealthy political stakeholders in climate change regulation.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can scientists also be paid off by Democratic politicians?

Reflect for a moment on how braindead this post is

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

thanks pals. glad i was able to pick up what you were putting down, mick [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] and SC, the growing leftist religiosity extends well beyond racism and is readily apparent in virtually all the hot button topics from assault to climate change. both of the latter are very real issues, but when we elevate victimhood as sacrament and regard skepticism as heresy, we're not treading a path of progress.

I like that you're referring to it as a religion. Ive found it funny that after 20-30 years of anti-religion pro atheism, resulted in fanatical idolization of governance.

I'm no historian, but I'm sure that if you look at the history of Russia, you'll see some pretty comparable correlations hehe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

btw your religion has nothign to do with climate change, that is just one of the saint's of your cult, Lune.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

#2 and #3 have nothing to do with the existence of climate change which is the topic at hand and where the skepticism is undue. I agree with #2 and #3. Rightwing propaganda purports that the entire thing, climate change as a whole, is a hoax, which is the most retarded position one can have. We know:

1. The climate is becoming hotter.
2. Humans are responsible for this abrupt and sizable change.
3. It's too late to quickly reverse.

We do not know: All the effects of this change going forward.

Every major economic stakeholder in the United States except renewable energy companies, which are poor and sparse, stands to benefit from muddying the waters on this. Your Republican representatives don't care what the truth is or what the evidence says, they only care about what the people who are paying their bribes want. And the people paying their bribes want to pollute.

this is a reasonable position and i agree with most of it. i think your second assertion is a bit off though. we are very confident humans have contributed to the change, but we do not know the magnitude of the contribution. the problem with advancing absolutes is that any grain of contrary evidence shatters the argument.

I've a question though. Given that it cannot be reversed quickly and despite broad agreement that we should do what we can to avoid exacerbating the condition (ignoring that there are benefits to warmer climates such as increased crop yields and an overall greener planet) do you think adaptation ought to be prioritized more, especially given that the west's ability to throttle any changes diminishes as rapidly as the third world industrializes?

[Throndor]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

#2 and #3 have nothing to do with the existence of climate change which is the topic at hand and where the skepticism is undue. I agree with #2 and #3. Rightwing propaganda purports that the entire thing, climate change as a whole, is a hoax, which is the most retarded position one can have. We know:

1. The climate is becoming hotter.
2. Humans are responsible for this abrupt and sizable change.
3. It's too late to quickly reverse.

We do not know: All the effects of this change going forward.

Every major economic stakeholder in the United States except renewable energy companies, which are poor and sparse, stands to benefit from muddying the waters on this. Your Republican representatives don't care what the truth is or what the evidence says, they only care about what the people who are paying their bribes want. And the people paying their bribes want to pollute.

You have to sign it, to see what's in it.

If you like your insurance, you can keep it (at 300% of it's former price)

[Throndor]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can scientists also be paid off by Democratic politicians? There are a massive amount of wealthy political stakeholders in climate change regulation.

There's also been numerous instances of data-sets being manipulated to coincide with the narrative.

There's also been a disproportionate number of weather-data-gathering stations built in spots that have been historically hotter and more arid than other areas in the world so as to "bring up the average".