Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9028 total)
45 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: Michael MD
Post Volume: Total: 884,158 Year: 1,804/14,102 Month: 172/624 Week: 56/95 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
jar
Member
Posts: 33256
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 781 of 824 (884835)
03-10-2021 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 779 by Phat
03-09-2021 11:11 PM


Re: Far Right vs Far Left Ideology
Ideology has absolutely NOTHING to do with the reality of what is happening.

The difference is that you fail to realize that Global Warming is only inevitable if humans decide to allow it. And Jesus would have stepped in long before we reached this critical stage if he wasn't simply the creation of the Christian Cult of ********* imagination.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 779 by Phat, posted 03-09-2021 11:11 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 782 by Phat, posted 03-10-2021 11:10 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 783 by Phat, posted 03-10-2021 11:18 AM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15104
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 782 of 824 (884836)
03-10-2021 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 781 by jar
03-10-2021 7:00 AM


Re: Far Right vs Far Left Ideology
For you to even say that Jesus is a human creation betrays your claim to being Christian. But we've argued this stuff ad nauseum. To limit the character to the book and then challenge the Gospel Of John while keeping your favorite Matthew 24-25 interpretation is a selective and weak argument. God stepped in once...through His Son. Personally I aree with you that we will be judged according to how we handle our "charge" or our responsibility. Break that word esponsibility down. God has and had the ability to commune with humanity. It is our response to His ability that we will be judged by. He owes us no rescue apart from saving our souls should He wish.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 781 by jar, posted 03-10-2021 7:00 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15104
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 783 of 824 (884837)
03-10-2021 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 781 by jar
03-10-2021 7:00 AM


Re: Far Right vs Far Left Ideology
And one more thing. Global warming damage is already ineviitable. There is no practical way that humans could prevent the damage at this point. We missed several deadlines calculated by scientists. And just as secular humanists balked at the idea that Jesus was the only way, Believers will balk at the idea that unity and consensus must be implemented and will fight that. They wont unite without Jesus. The irony and the reality.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 781 by jar, posted 03-10-2021 7:00 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 785 by jar, posted 03-10-2021 12:21 PM Phat has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 784 of 824 (884839)
03-10-2021 11:49 AM


In the 90's Al Gore and the mainstream made a whole bunch of predictions that failed to eventuate...
That should have been the end of "global warming" propaganda. But they changed its name to climate change so now its every kind of weather event can be linked to climate change.

This officially makes it a pseudoscience... Its predictions failed and now its become unfalsifiable.
The fringe climate scientists have actually been predicting a cooling in temperatures due to a decrease in solar activity.

The mainstream resorts to demonizing such people with terms like "climate denier" in order to avoid debating them...

So not only was the mainstream wrong, the people they ridiculed and rejected were actually right...


Replies to this message:
 Message 786 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 1:12 PM Porkncheese has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33256
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 785 of 824 (884843)
03-10-2021 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 783 by Phat
03-10-2021 11:18 AM


Re: Far Right vs Far Left Ideology
Yet it is the belief in the human created fantasy Jesus that has led humans to ignore reality and still do nothing to mitigate the suffering they have cause.

The bill will get paid and not by the pitiful and ********** Jesus you and the CCoi created and market..


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 783 by Phat, posted 03-10-2021 11:18 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 796 by Phat, posted 03-11-2021 3:21 AM jar has responded

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 73
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010
Member Rating: 8.1


(3)
Message 786 of 824 (884845)
03-10-2021 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 784 by Porkncheese
03-10-2021 11:49 AM


A denier denies
In the '90s climate scientists made a whole bunch of predictions which actually did "eventuate" and many more that are yet to come true. Al Gore's and mainstream media's exaggeration and sensationalization of the predictions don't change the validity of the science, or the success of the predictions scientists have actually made.

Porkncheese writes:

But they changed its name to climate change...

Near the very start, it was also called "inadvertent weather modification". The problem didn't go away just because it was given different labels.

They used to call nuclear weapons "A-bombs" and "H-bombs". Do you believe that makes them any less dangerous? Non-existent? Was Hiroshima a false-flag operation?

In climate science, "global warming" refers to the fact that the overall average temps on Earth are increasing. This in turn leads to changes in various climates on the planet: "climate change".

Porkncheese writes:

Its predictions failed and now its become unfalsifiable.

Its predictions have succeeded and continue to do so. Cherry-picking exaggerations of politicians and tabloids doesn't change that.

Porkncheese writes:

The fringe climate scientists have actually been predicting a cooling in temperatures due to a decrease in solar activity.

Who cares what the fringe says? Professional climate scientists are well aware that temps should be decreasing because of a downward trend in Earth's total solar irradiation. But they aren't. That's further proof that something unnatural is driving climate. We know what's doing it. We are.

"Denier" is a perfectly appropriate term for people who deny reality and actively campaign against accepting it. Demonization is appropriate too. The denier talking points you've regurgitated here have infested our government and are delaying our response to the problem. That's leading to more human suffering and economic damage.

Climate deniers deserve no more respect than flat-earthers or holocaust deniers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 784 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 11:49 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 787 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 2:28 PM glowby has responded
 Message 794 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2021 10:01 PM glowby has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 787 of 824 (884848)
03-10-2021 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by glowby
03-10-2021 1:12 PM


Re: A denier denies
The problem we have is that most people didn't go to university and most people that did go to university didn't do a hard science subject. And so they think that censoring dissenting opinions is normal when in actual fact it only proves a pseudoscience. They think that you're supposed to simply believe them when they say "follow the science" or "the science is settled" without knowing that this is a classical red flag of pseudoscience. And they don't understand what makes a claim scientific.

Simply put, the mainstream made a heap of predictions that were false. The sea didn't take out countries, we still have snow and the world didn't end.
The outsiders that the mainstream fear, made predictions that are true... The world is getting cooler.

A claim is not scientific unless its falsifiable... Is climate change falsifiable?

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 1:12 PM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 788 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 5:28 PM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 797 by AZPaul3, posted 03-11-2021 6:38 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 799 by AZPaul3, posted 03-11-2021 6:59 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 73
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010
Member Rating: 8.1


(2)
Message 788 of 824 (884856)
03-10-2021 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 787 by Porkncheese
03-10-2021 2:28 PM


A denier denies denying
There's nothing wrong with criticizing dissenting opinions which are based entirely on lies, denial of the real science, and lame-o right-wing talking points like the ones you fed us. The idea that global warming is a "hoax" is nothing more than yet another stupid conspiracy theory.

Ridiculing those who misrepresent and spin the science doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the science. Anthropogenic global warming theory is indeed disprovable and has yet to be disproved. You deniers just have to develop a testable theory explains how things got so warm so fast. But all you do is complain that no one takes your absurd conspiracy theories seriously, and tell anecdotes about Al Gore.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 787 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 2:28 PM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 789 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 7:55 PM glowby has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 789 of 824 (884858)
03-10-2021 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 788 by glowby
03-10-2021 5:28 PM


Re: A denier denies denying
Keep on using slander cos u have nothing else...
Hehehehe its a great way to lose an argument and look silly as well...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 788 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 5:28 PM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 790 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 8:01 PM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 801 by AZPaul3, posted 03-11-2021 7:21 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 73
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010
Member Rating: 8.1


Message 790 of 824 (884859)
03-10-2021 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 789 by Porkncheese
03-10-2021 7:55 PM


Re: A denier denies denying
Contrary to what your denier resources tell you, identifying and ridiculing your stupid denier talking points doesn't magically validate your stupid denier talking points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 789 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 7:55 PM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 791 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 8:35 PM glowby has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 791 of 824 (884861)
03-10-2021 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 790 by glowby
03-10-2021 8:01 PM


Re: A denier denies denying
AHAHAHAHA you've got nuffin... Keep digging your grave mate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 790 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 8:01 PM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 792 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 8:48 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 73
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010
Member Rating: 8.1


Message 792 of 824 (884862)
03-10-2021 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 791 by Porkncheese
03-10-2021 8:35 PM


Re: A denier denies denying
OK. Defend your position. Explain why Al Gore's exaggerated predictions of future climate change back in the '90s invalidates the work of generations of climate scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 8:35 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 793 of 824 (884864)
03-10-2021 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 777 by Taq
03-09-2021 11:35 AM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
marc9000 writes:

I said that part of the problem was that in some cases they had to be SHUT DOWN to protect themselves from damage due to wind and solar failures.

That's false.

quote:
During this week’s crisis, natural gas plants tripped offline as equipment froze, both at power facilities themselves and at wellheads, leading to a drop-off in supplies, experts said. Tripping is the sudden and often unexpected cutting off of a power facility's connection to the grid, similar to a circuit breaker.

I guess it depends on where the information comes from.

quote:
It appears that ERCOT, Texas’s grid operator, was caught off guard by how soon demand began to exceed supply. Failure to institute a managed rolling blackout before the grid frequency fell to dangerously low levels meant some plants had to shut off to protect their equipment. This is likely why so many power plants went offline, not because they had failed to maintain operations in the cold weather.

Yes, Green Energy Failures Helped Cause Texas Blackout Disaster

and;

quote:
Ercot turned off power for millions of customers after several power plants shut down due to the below-freezing temperatures the state is experiencing. Officials at Ercot said the equipment at the plants could not handle the extreme, low temperatures. The choice was either shutting down power for customers or risking a collapse of the grid altogether.

Why is Texas suffering power blackouts during the winter freeze?

The second link said "several" (NOT ALL) power plants failed due to the cold. The rest were shut down to avoid a complete collapse.

Your link said "natural gas plants tripped offline" - it didn't distinguish between "some", and "all". I suspect it tiptoed around that fact that it was only some, not all. You'd have to show more links to defend your claim that my statement was false. I suspect you could outlink me, the biggest search engines are owned by Democrats.

We are all well aware of the current dependence on fossil fuels.

Not according to the false Message 658, and the reaction it got from most everyone here.

Show us a single Democrat that prevented the winterization of the Texas power grid. Just one. If you can't, then admit you are wrong.

No one has yet shown me any proof that Republicans were 100% responsible for a lack of upgrades to fossil fuel plants. Republicans are not nearly as hostile to fossil fuel use as are Democrats. Yet we're supposed to believe the party that's more hostile to fossil fuels was more in favor of upgrading fossil fuel plants?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 777 by Taq, posted 03-09-2021 11:35 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 800 by AZPaul3, posted 03-11-2021 7:14 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 808 by Taq, posted 03-11-2021 6:18 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 794 of 824 (884865)
03-10-2021 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by glowby
03-10-2021 1:12 PM


Re: A denier denies
The denier talking points you've regurgitated here have infested our government and are delaying our response to the problem.

Do you have any specifics as to what our response should be? Shouldn't there have been a lot of discussion in the media, prompting discussion in the general public over the past 10 to 20 years concerning essential versus non-essential fossil fuel use? It hasn't happened, because "our government" wouldn't like that discussion. Rich government people, and their rich lobbyists, only want to point fingers, they don't want to look at themselves. It's common sense that the more financially well off people in the U.S. use more fossil fuels in non essential ways than do lower middle class people. The ones who are targeted with useless big government programs, like auto emission testing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 1:12 PM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 795 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 11:06 PM marc9000 has responded

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 73
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010
Member Rating: 8.1


(1)
Message 795 of 824 (884866)
03-10-2021 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 794 by marc9000
03-10-2021 10:01 PM


Essential vs. non-essential fuel use
marc9000 writes:

Do you have any specifics as to what our response should be?

Our responses should be to cut greenhouse gas emissions wherever possible and practical, even if it means inconvenience and higher prices. An overview is here... https://www.nap.edu/...2784/Informing_Report_Brief_final.pdf

Our response should NOT be denying science and reality.

marc9000 writes:

Shouldn't there have been a lot of discussion in the media, prompting discussion in the general public over the past 10 to 20 years concerning essential versus non-essential fossil fuel use?


Essential vs. non-essential use isn't really the issue. It's about reducing use where we can, developing technologies to make it non-essential where possible, and encouraging the use of those technologies. Electric air travel isn't possible yet. But there have been public discussions in many cities, for example, over whether their fleets should move from gas to electric. The public has also been kept in the loop on regional wind and solar projects. I see discussions in the media I follow. Don't know about your media.

Let the rich folks have their gas guzzling limos, yachts, and private jets. As long as the other 99% of us have cleaner energy alternatives, their selfishness won't matter much.

marc9000 writes:

... lower middle class people. The ones who are targeted with useless big government programs, like auto emission testing.


Rich folks' cars must be tested too. It's free for all here in Illinois, so no one is "targeted". Emission testing is more about preventing toxic pollution than making sure you're getting good fuel efficiency. But I agree that the program's time and usefulness may have passed. I haven't had a car fail since the '90s, thanks in part to stricter regulations on the auto industry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2021 10:01 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 814 by marc9000, posted 03-14-2021 9:16 PM glowby has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021