Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #721225 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-28 11:58 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-12-28 11:29 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Solastalgia Is The Specific Grief And Anxiety Caused By Climate Change kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-28 11:58 -0500
Re: Solastalgia Is The Specific Grief And Anxiety Caused By Climate Change % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 10:06 -0700
Re: Solastalgia Is The Specific Grief And Anxiety Caused By Climate Change Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-28 10:11 -0700
Re: Solastalgia Is The Specific Grief And Anxiety Caused By Climate Change Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-28 12:15 -0500
Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-28 14:34 -0800
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 15:47 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 17:53 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 15:57 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 18:09 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:10 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:18 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:23 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:38 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:12 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 18:25 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:36 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 18:08 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:14 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 18:18 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:20 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:27 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:34 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:36 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 18:40 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:54 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:58 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:59 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:00 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:13 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:20 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:29 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:33 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:40 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:42 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:45 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 19:08 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:12 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 19:13 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:23 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 20:00 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 18:05 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 20:12 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 19:13 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 21:23 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 20:27 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 19:06 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:13 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 19:16 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:19 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 19:34 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:39 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 20:04 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 18:12 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 20:17 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 19:13 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 21:19 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 20:35 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:54 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:05 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-29 12:36 -0500
Snit's apocalypse cult. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-28 15:58 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:00 -0700
The REAL climate denier. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-28 16:16 -0800
Re: The REAL climate denier. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:18 -0700
Re: The REAL climate denier. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-12-28 16:22 -0800
Science FICTION ( fake news ). Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-28 16:34 -0800
Re: Science FICTION ( fake news ). Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:39 -0700
Snit needs his apocalypse cult, Kool-Aid and all. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-28 16:53 -0800
Re: Snit needs his apocalypse cult, Kool-Aid and all. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:55 -0700
Re: Snit needs his apocalypse cult, Kool-Aid and all. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-12-28 17:06 -0800
Re: Science FICTION ( fake news ). Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:42 -0700
Re: The REAL climate denier. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:28 -0700
Re: The REAL climate denier. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-12-28 16:51 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-28 20:49 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 19:02 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-28 22:18 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 20:37 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-28 23:19 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 21:25 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-29 21:12 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-29 19:33 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-29 21:37 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-29 19:52 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-30 10:26 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-30 16:08 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-30 13:39 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-30 20:52 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-30 16:02 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-30 21:50 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-30 18:44 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-30 16:49 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-30 22:04 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-30 20:18 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-31 00:34 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 06:23 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-31 02:24 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-31 05:51 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 15:01 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-31 13:32 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 18:41 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-31 13:47 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 11:53 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-31 15:38 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 13:43 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-12-31 12:46 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 13:48 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 13:56 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:00 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 14:04 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:16 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 14:20 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:21 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 14:23 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:27 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 14:35 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:42 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 14:49 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:53 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 15:14 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 15:20 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 15:29 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 15:32 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 15:36 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 15:39 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 16:12 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 16:26 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 16:30 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 16:38 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 16:47 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 16:58 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-30 19:20 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-31 05:46 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. "Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn>" <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-31 11:39 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-31 06:48 -0600
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:28 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:32 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:40 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:42 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:44 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:46 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-12-28 16:33 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:36 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:42 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:45 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 18:01 -0700
Re: Solastalgia Is The Specific Grief And Anxiety Caused By Climate Change "Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn>" <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-28 11:29 -0800
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-29 19:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <g8qp2tFbthdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #721507 |
On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>> “We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.” >>>>>>> .... >>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>> exactly what it is – The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>> >>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>> observation. >>>>> >>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What is climastrology? >>> >>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >> >> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >> and the like. >> >>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>> the planet? >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>> >>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>> planet?" >> >> From that link: >> ----- >> • Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >> >> • Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >> cause, >> >> • Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >> global effects, and that >> >> • People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >> climate changes. >> ----- >> >>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>> article? >> >> See the quote, above. >> >>> Compare with: >>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>> To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that >>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>> >> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >> >> But I never said those folks did not. > > There are longer lists, including: > > http://www.petitionproject.org/ > 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition > Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ ----- What's True A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the concept of anthropogenic global warming. What's False The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign. ----- https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ ----- First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum requirement is a bachelor’s of science degree. That’s no guarantee that the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the person pursued a career in science. The petition’s website says that 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth." That would be about 12 percent of the total. There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. Based on the site’s figures, most of them don’t specialize in climate change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines." That’s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and physicians. We also don’t know much about when people signed the petition. The website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007." The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind’s role in climate change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came after that date, it doesn’t mean that those who came before remain skeptical of climate change. ----- -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-29 21:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <jnbg2etdr8bojmiteejd8otli42s1cgnv7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #721509 |
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>> “We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.” >>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>> exactly what it is – The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>> observation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is climastrology? >>>> >>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>> >>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>> and the like. >>> >>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>> the planet? >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>> >>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>> planet?" >>> >>> From that link: >>> ----- >>> • Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>> >>> • Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>> cause, >>> >>> • Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>> global effects, and that >>> >>> • People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>> climate changes. >>> ----- >>> >>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>> article? >>> >>> See the quote, above. >>> >>>> Compare with: >>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>> To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that >>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>> >>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>> >>> But I never said those folks did not. >> >> There are longer lists, including: >> >> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >> > >Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: > >https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >----- >What's True > >A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >concept of anthropogenic global warming. > >What's False > >The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >science to sign. >----- > >https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >----- >First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >requirement is a bachelor’s of science degree. That’s no guarantee that >the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >person pursued a career in science. The petition’s website says that >12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." > >When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >"there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >the physical environment of the Earth." > >That would be about 12 percent of the total. > >There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >Based on the site’s figures, most of them don’t specialize in climate >change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. > >These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >diverse climate-related disciplines." > >That’s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >physicians. > >We also don’t know much about when people signed the petition. The >website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >October 2007." > >The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind’s role in climate >change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >after that date, it doesn’t mean that those who came before remain >skeptical of climate change. >----- How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have *any* expertise in climastrology? But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-29 19:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <g8qq6tFc4h0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #721511 |
On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>> “We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.” >>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>> exactly what it is – The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>> >>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>> >>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>> and the like. >>>> >>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>> the planet? >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>> >>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>> planet?" >>>> >>>> From that link: >>>> ----- >>>> • Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>> >>>> • Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>> cause, >>>> >>>> • Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>> global effects, and that >>>> >>>> • People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>> climate changes. >>>> ----- >>>> >>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>> article? >>>> >>>> See the quote, above. >>>> >>>>> Compare with: >>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>> To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that >>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>> >>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>> >>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>> >>> There are longer lists, including: >>> >>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>> >> >> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >> >> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >> ----- >> What's True >> >> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >> >> What's False >> >> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >> science to sign. >> ----- >> >> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >> ----- >> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >> requirement is a bachelor’s of science degree. That’s no guarantee that >> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >> person pursued a career in science. The petition’s website says that >> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >> >> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >> the physical environment of the Earth." >> >> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >> >> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >> Based on the site’s figures, most of them don’t specialize in climate >> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >> >> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >> diverse climate-related disciplines." >> >> That’s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >> physicians. >> >> We also don’t know much about when people signed the petition. The >> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >> October 2007." >> >> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind’s role in climate >> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >> after that date, it doesn’t mean that those who came before remain >> skeptical of climate change. >> ----- > > How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have > *any* expertise in climastrology? It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. So even if some who have a comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, every single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general consensus. To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to actively reject it and deny the general consensus. And some of them are no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing consensus. Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject the general consensus based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. > But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 10:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <annh2etcc9pv9eiftn1qjl4f2e99pq58m8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #721517 |
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>> “We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.” >>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is – The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>> >>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>> >>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>> and the like. >>>>> >>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>> >>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>> planet?" >>>>> >>>>> From that link: >>>>> ----- >>>>> • Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>> >>>>> • Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>> cause, >>>>> >>>>> • Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>> global effects, and that >>>>> >>>>> • People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>> climate changes. >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>> article? >>>>> >>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>> >>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>> To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that >>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>> >>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>> >>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>> >>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>> >>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>> >>> >>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>> >>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>> ----- >>> What's True >>> >>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>> >>> What's False >>> >>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>> science to sign. >>> ----- >>> >>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>> ----- >>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>> requirement is a bachelor’s of science degree. That’s no guarantee that >>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>> person pursued a career in science. The petition’s website says that >>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>> >>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>> >>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>> >>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>> Based on the site’s figures, most of them don’t specialize in climate >>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>> >>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>> >>> That’s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>> physicians. >>> >>> We also don’t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>> October 2007." >>> >>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind’s role in climate >>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>> after that date, it doesn’t mean that those who came before remain >>> skeptical of climate change. >>> ----- >> >> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >> *any* expertise in climastrology? > >It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. Anyone can make a comment. >So even if some who have a >comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, ... you cite them anyway. >every >single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >consensus. Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >actively reject it ... counted by whom? >and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >consensus. > >Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >the general consensus What "general consensus?" Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the qualitative weasel-word "general?" If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when people make themselves known. "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to conform. <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them… because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’ >based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. False analogy. Not even a good try. >> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 16:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <g8s8s0FlngdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #721558 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>> We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them. >>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>> and the like. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>> >>>>>> From that link: >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>> >>>>>> Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>> cause, >>>>>> >>>>>> Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>> >>>>>> People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> >>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>> article? >>>>>> >>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>> To ferociously insist as politicians and activists do that >>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>> >>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>> >>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>> >>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>> >>>> >>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>> >>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>> ----- >>>> What's True >>>> >>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>> >>>> What's False >>>> >>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>> science to sign. >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>> ----- >>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>> requirement is a bachelors of science degree. Thats no guarantee that >>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>> person pursued a career in science. The petitions website says that >>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>> >>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>> >>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>> >>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>> Based on the sites figures, most of them dont specialize in climate >>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>> >>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>> >>>> Thats way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>> physicians. >>>> >>>> We also dont know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>> October 2007." >>>> >>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankinds role in climate >>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>> after that date, it doesnt mean that those who came before remain >>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>> ----- >>> >>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >> >> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. > > Anyone can make a comment. > >> So even if some who have a >> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, > > ... you cite them anyway. > >> every >> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >> consensus. > > Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no > relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? > > >> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >> actively reject it > > ... counted by whom? > >> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >> consensus. >> >> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >> the general consensus > > What "general consensus?" > > Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the > qualitative weasel-word "general?" > > If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when > people make themselves known. > > "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra > > The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are > more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to > conform. > > <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> > If people ever say that fears of censorship for climate change views > are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I > published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be > allowed the all of the above energy strategy we have in the U.S., > the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship > with them because my analysis and theirs diverge. > > >> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. > > False analogy. Not even a good try. > >>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? > > > The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. It is weak in the reason for denial though — multinational massive corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for the very rich. You can deny the science all you want. You can worship the rich all day. I will stick to the evidence and go with the science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 13:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <au3i2e94t5b0s5bmj3km1urgqesekmv9gr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #721561 |
On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>> ----- >>>>> What's True >>>>> >>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>> >>>>> What's False >>>>> >>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>> science to sign. >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>> ----- >>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>> >>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>> >>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>> >>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>> >>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>> >>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>> physicians. >>>>> >>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>> October 2007." >>>>> >>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>> ----- >>>> >>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>> >>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >> >> Anyone can make a comment. >> >>> So even if some who have a >>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >> >> ... you cite them anyway. >> >>> every >>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>> consensus. >> >> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >> >> >>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>> actively reject it >> >> ... counted by whom? >> >>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>> consensus. >>> >>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>> the general consensus >> >> What "general consensus?" >> >> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >> >> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >> people make themselves known. >> >> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >> >> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >> conform. >> >> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >> >> >>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >> >> False analogy. Not even a good try. >> >>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >> >> >> > >The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. > >It is weak in the reason for denial though — multinational massive >corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >the very rich. > >You can deny the science all you want. What ***the*** science? It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** science that can't make valid predictions. >You can worship the rich all day. You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. > I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they hope to kill."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 20:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <g8spfvFpaalU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #721568 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: > >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> What's True >>>>>> >>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>> >>>>>> What's False >>>>>> >>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>> >>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>> >>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>> >>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>> >>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>> physicians. >>>>>> >>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>> >>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>> >>> Anyone can make a comment. >>> >>>> So even if some who have a >>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>> >>> ... you cite them anyway. >>> >>>> every >>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>> consensus. >>> >>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>> >>> >>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>> actively reject it >>> >>> ... counted by whom? >>> >>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>> consensus. >>>> >>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>> the general consensus >>> >>> What "general consensus?" >>> >>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>> >>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>> people make themselves known. >>> >>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>> >>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>> conform. >>> >>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>> >>> >>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>> >>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>> >>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>> >>> >>> >> >> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >> >> It is weak in the reason for denial though multinational massive >> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >> the very rich. >> >> You can deny the science all you want. > > What ***the*** science? > > It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** > science that can't make valid predictions. > >> You can worship the rich all day. > > You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. > >> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. > > What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without > the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? > > "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. > They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting > to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they > hope to kill." > > By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject it. I accept it as what it is — the best data we currently have and quite reliable. I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you extend your irrational rejection?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 13:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <bs80up.p2f.19.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #721589 |
On 2018-12-30 1:52 p.m., Snit wrote: > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >> >>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>> >>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>> >>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>> >>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>> >>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>> >>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>> >>>>> every >>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>> consensus. >>>> >>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>> >>>> >>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>> actively reject it >>>> >>>> ... counted by whom? >>>> >>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>> consensus. >>>>> >>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>> the general consensus >>>> >>>> What "general consensus?" >>>> >>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>> >>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>> people make themselves known. >>>> >>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>> >>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>> conform. >>>> >>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>> >>>> >>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>> >>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>> >>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>> >>> It is weak in the reason for denial though multinational massive >>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>> the very rich. >>> >>> You can deny the science all you want. >> >> What ***the*** science? >> >> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >> science that can't make valid predictions. >> >>> You can worship the rich all day. >> >> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >> >>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >> >> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >> >> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >> hope to kill." >> >> > > By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject > it. I accept it as what it is — the best data we currently have and quite > reliable. > > I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you > extend your irrational rejection? > i walked over to my most comfortable chair and i was told to snit down
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 16:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <bcci2etdlqerapk58sc7vmb1l5j00s848j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #721589 |
On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >> >>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>> >>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>> >>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>> >>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>> >>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>> >>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>> >>>>> every >>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>> consensus. >>>> >>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>> >>>> >>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>> actively reject it >>>> >>>> ... counted by whom? >>>> >>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>> consensus. >>>>> >>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>> the general consensus >>>> >>>> What "general consensus?" >>>> >>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>> >>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>> people make themselves known. >>>> >>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>> >>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>> conform. >>>> >>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>> >>>> >>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>> >>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>> >>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>> >>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>> the very rich. >>> >>> You can deny the science all you want. >> >> What ***the*** science? >> >> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >> science that can't make valid predictions. >> >>> You can worship the rich all day. >> >> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >> >>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >> >> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >> >> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >> hope to kill." >> >> > >By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >it. I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all gonna die because of ACO2. Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? >I accept it as what it is — the best data we currently have and quite >reliable. ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. >I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >extend your irrational rejection? Irrational how? How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:22).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 21:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <g8sss9Fq0r1U31@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #721591 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: > >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>>> >>>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>>> >>>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>>> >>>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>>> >>>>>> every >>>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>>> consensus. >>>>> >>>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>>> actively reject it >>>>> >>>>> ... counted by whom? >>>>> >>>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>>> consensus. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>>> the general consensus >>>>> >>>>> What "general consensus?" >>>>> >>>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>>> >>>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>>> people make themselves known. >>>>> >>>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>>> >>>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>>> conform. >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>>> >>>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>>> >>>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>>> >>>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>>> the very rich. >>>> >>>> You can deny the science all you want. >>> >>> What ***the*** science? >>> >>> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >>> science that can't make valid predictions. >>> >>>> You can worship the rich all day. >>> >>> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >>> >>>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >>> >>> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >>> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >>> >>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>> hope to kill." >>> >>> >> >> By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >> it. > > I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all > gonna die because of ACO2. > > Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" > and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? > >> I accept it as what it is the best data we currently have and quite >> reliable. > > ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. > >> I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >> extend your irrational rejection? > > Irrational how? > > How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by > climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? > > <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> > "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow > not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not > spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not > be afraid of him" > (Deuteronomy 18:22). > You reject science and point to religion to try to defend your active ignorance. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 18:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <rvli2ehh6b04n5d2kng6982sbsbpf6j9sn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #721603 |
On 30 Dec 2018 21:50:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: >> >>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>>>> >>>>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>>>> >>>>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>>> every >>>>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>>>> actively reject it >>>>>> >>>>>> ... counted by whom? >>>>>> >>>>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>>>> the general consensus >>>>>> >>>>>> What "general consensus?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>>>> >>>>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>>>> people make themselves known. >>>>>> >>>>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>>>> >>>>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>>>> conform. >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>>>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>>>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>>>> the very rich. >>>>> >>>>> You can deny the science all you want. >>>> >>>> What ***the*** science? >>>> >>>> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >>>> science that can't make valid predictions. >>>> >>>>> You can worship the rich all day. >>>> >>>> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >>>> >>>>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >>>> >>>> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >>>> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >>>> >>>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>> hope to kill." >>>> >>>> >>> >>> By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >>> it. >> >> I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all >> gonna die because of ACO2. >> >> Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" >> and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? >> >>> I accept it as what it is ? the best data we currently have and quite >>> reliable. >> >> ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. >> >>> I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >>> extend your irrational rejection? >> >> Irrational how? >> >> How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by >> climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? >> >> <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> >> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow >> not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not >> spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not >> be afraid of him" >> (Deuteronomy 18:22). >> > >You reject science and point to religion to try to defend your active >ignorance. Got it. I posted guidance on how to spot a false prophet. What excuse to you offer for the numerous failed predictions of your ***the*** science and its doomsaying "consensus?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 16:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <g8t3riFreolU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #721626 |
On 12/30/18 4:44 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On 30 Dec 2018 21:50:01 GMT, Snit wrote: > >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>>>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>>>>> actively reject it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... counted by whom? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>>>>> the general consensus >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What "general consensus?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>>>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>>>>> people make themselves known. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>>>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>>>>> conform. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>>>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>>>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>>>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>>>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>>>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>>>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>>>>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>>>>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>>>>> the very rich. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can deny the science all you want. >>>>> >>>>> What ***the*** science? >>>>> >>>>> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >>>>> science that can't make valid predictions. >>>>> >>>>>> You can worship the rich all day. >>>>> >>>>> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >>>>> >>>>>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >>>>> >>>>> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >>>>> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >>>>> >>>>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>> hope to kill." >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >>>> it. >>> >>> I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all >>> gonna die because of ACO2. >>> >>> Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" >>> and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? >>> >>>> I accept it as what it is ? the best data we currently have and quite >>>> reliable. >>> >>> ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. >>> >>>> I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >>>> extend your irrational rejection? >>> >>> Irrational how? >>> >>> How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by >>> climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? >>> >>> <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> >>> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow >>> not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not >>> spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not >>> be afraid of him" >>> (Deuteronomy 18:22). >>> >> >> You reject science and point to religion to try to defend your active >> ignorance. Got it. > > I posted guidance on how to spot a false prophet. > > What excuse to you offer for the numerous failed predictions of your > ***the*** science and its doomsaying "consensus?" > I talk about science and you deny it and talk about religious things. Sure. That was pretty much my point. So what other areas of science do you reject? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 22:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <sn1j2elje27mlrtnm7due53tsnshkt74ni@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #721627 |
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 16:49:06 -0700, Snit wrote: >On 12/30/18 4:44 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On 30 Dec 2018 21:50:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >> >>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>>>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>>>>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>>>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>>>>>> actively reject it >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... counted by whom? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>>>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>>>>>> the general consensus >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What "general consensus?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>>>>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>>>>>> people make themselves known. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>>>>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>>>>>> conform. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>>>>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>>>>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>>>>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>>>>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>>>>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>>>>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>>>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>>>>>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>>>>>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>>>>>> the very rich. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can deny the science all you want. >>>>>> >>>>>> What ***the*** science? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >>>>>> science that can't make valid predictions. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You can worship the rich all day. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >>>>>> >>>>>> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >>>>>> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >>>>>> >>>>>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>> hope to kill." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >>>>> it. >>>> >>>> I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all >>>> gonna die because of ACO2. >>>> >>>> Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" >>>> and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? >>>> >>>>> I accept it as what it is ? the best data we currently have and quite >>>>> reliable. >>>> >>>> ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. >>>> >>>>> I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >>>>> extend your irrational rejection? >>>> >>>> Irrational how? >>>> >>>> How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by >>>> climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? >>>> >>>> <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> >>>> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow >>>> not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not >>>> spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not >>>> be afraid of him" >>>> (Deuteronomy 18:22). >>>> >>> >>> You reject science and point to religion to try to defend your active >>> ignorance. Got it. >> >> I posted guidance on how to spot a false prophet. >> >> What excuse to you offer for the numerous failed predictions of your >> ***the*** science and its doomsaying "consensus?" >> > >I talk about science Where? >and you deny it and talk about religious things. Sure. I talked about valid predictions. Climastrologists are not good at making valid predictions. >That was pretty much my point. > >So what other areas of science do you reject? Greenies are confused by the "whooosh" sound they so often hear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-30 20:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <g8tg4vFtm7jU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #721661 |
On 12/30/18 8:04 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 16:49:06 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 12/30/18 4:44 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On 30 Dec 2018 21:50:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>>>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>>>>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>>>>>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>>>>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>>>>>>> actively reject it >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... counted by whom? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>>>>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>>>>>>> the general consensus >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What "general consensus?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>>>>>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>>>>>>> people make themselves known. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>>>>>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>>>>>>> conform. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>>>>>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>>>>>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>>>>>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>>>>>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>>>>>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>>>>>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>>>>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>>>>>>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>>>>>>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>>>>>>> the very rich. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can deny the science all you want. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What ***the*** science? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >>>>>>> science that can't make valid predictions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can worship the rich all day. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >>>>>>> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>>> hope to kill." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >>>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>> I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all >>>>> gonna die because of ACO2. >>>>> >>>>> Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" >>>>> and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? >>>>> >>>>>> I accept it as what it is ? the best data we currently have and quite >>>>>> reliable. >>>>> >>>>> ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. >>>>> >>>>>> I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >>>>>> extend your irrational rejection? >>>>> >>>>> Irrational how? >>>>> >>>>> How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by >>>>> climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> >>>>> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow >>>>> not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not >>>>> spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not >>>>> be afraid of him" >>>>> (Deuteronomy 18:22). >>>>> >>>> >>>> You reject science and point to religion to try to defend your active >>>> ignorance. Got it. >>> >>> I posted guidance on how to spot a false prophet. >>> >>> What excuse to you offer for the numerous failed predictions of your >>> ***the*** science and its doomsaying "consensus?" >>> >> >> I talk about science > > Where? > >> and you deny it and talk about religious things. Sure. > > I talked about valid predictions. > > Climastrologists are not good at making valid predictions. > >> That was pretty much my point. >> >> So what other areas of science do you reject? > > Greenies are confused by the "whooosh" sound they so often hear. > When I speak of man-made global climate change I am speaking of science, just as I am when I speak of germ theory. Of course. This is beyond obvious. And you failed to answer the question as to the other areas of science you reject. Will you answer now? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-31 00:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <laaj2epu85u6ib5nh6tq1kisuujdhmmnca@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #721664 |
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 20:18:54 -0700, Snit wrote: >On 12/30/18 8:04 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 16:49:06 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 12/30/18 4:44 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On 30 Dec 2018 21:50:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>>>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>>>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>>>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>>>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>>>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>>>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>>>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>>>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>>>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>>>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>>>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>>>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>>>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>>>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>>>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>>>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>>>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>>>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>>>>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>>>>>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>>>>>>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>>>>>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>>>>>>>> actively reject it >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ... counted by whom? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>>>>>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>>>>>>>> the general consensus >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What "general consensus?" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>>>>>>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>>>>>>>> people make themselves known. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>>>>>>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>>>>>>>> conform. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>>>>>>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>>>>>>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>>>>>>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>>>>>>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>>>>>>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>>>>>>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>>>>>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>>>>>>>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>>>>>>>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>>>>>>>> the very rich. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can deny the science all you want. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What ***the*** science? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >>>>>>>> science that can't make valid predictions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can worship the rich all day. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >>>>>>>> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>>>> hope to kill." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >>>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all >>>>>> gonna die because of ACO2. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" >>>>>> and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? >>>>>> >>>>>>> I accept it as what it is ? the best data we currently have and quite >>>>>>> reliable. >>>>>> >>>>>> ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >>>>>>> extend your irrational rejection? >>>>>> >>>>>> Irrational how? >>>>>> >>>>>> How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by >>>>>> climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> >>>>>> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow >>>>>> not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not >>>>>> spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not >>>>>> be afraid of him" >>>>>> (Deuteronomy 18:22). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You reject science and point to religion to try to defend your active >>>>> ignorance. Got it. >>>> >>>> I posted guidance on how to spot a false prophet. >>>> >>>> What excuse to you offer for the numerous failed predictions of your >>>> ***the*** science and its doomsaying "consensus?" >>>> >>> >>> I talk about science >> >> Where? >> >>> and you deny it and talk about religious things. Sure. >> >> I talked about valid predictions. >> >> Climastrologists are not good at making valid predictions. >> >>> That was pretty much my point. >>> >>> So what other areas of science do you reject? >> >> Greenies are confused by the "whooosh" sound they so often hear. >> > >When I speak of man-made global climate change I am speaking of science, >just as I am when I speak of germ theory. Of course. This is beyond >obvious. ... all the way to ludicrous. Germ theory is much more demonstrable than climastrology's claim that the sky is falling and we're all gonna die ... because ACO2. >And you failed to answer the question as to the other areas of science >you reject. Will you answer now? Your question has an invalid premise. You made yet another bad assumption, like the aforementioned misunderstanding of your opponents' motivation. 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' As previously quoted: "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they hope to kill."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-31 06:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <g8tqu8F1fmbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #721682 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 20:18:54 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 12/30/18 8:04 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 16:49:06 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/30/18 4:44 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 21:50:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>>>>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>>>>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>>>>>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>>>>>>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>>>>>>>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>>>>>>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>>>>>>>>> actively reject it >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ... counted by whom? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>>>>>>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>>>>>>>>> the general consensus >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What "general consensus?" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>>>>>>>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>>>>>>>>> people make themselves known. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>>>>>>>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>>>>>>>>> conform. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>>>>>>>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>>>>>>>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>>>>>>>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>>>>>>>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>>>>>>>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>>>>>>>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>>>>>>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>>>>>>>>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>>>>>>>>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>>>>>>>>> the very rich. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can deny the science all you want. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What ***the*** science? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >>>>>>>>> science that can't make valid predictions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can worship the rich all day. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >>>>>>>>> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>>>>> hope to kill." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all >>>>>>> gonna die because of ACO2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" >>>>>>> and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I accept it as what it is ? the best data we currently have and quite >>>>>>>> reliable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >>>>>>>> extend your irrational rejection? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Irrational how? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by >>>>>>> climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> >>>>>>> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow >>>>>>> not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not >>>>>>> spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not >>>>>>> be afraid of him" >>>>>>> (Deuteronomy 18:22). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You reject science and point to religion to try to defend your active >>>>>> ignorance. Got it. >>>>> >>>>> I posted guidance on how to spot a false prophet. >>>>> >>>>> What excuse to you offer for the numerous failed predictions of your >>>>> ***the*** science and its doomsaying "consensus?" >>>>> >>>> >>>> I talk about science >>> >>> Where? >>> >>>> and you deny it and talk about religious things. Sure. >>> >>> I talked about valid predictions. >>> >>> Climastrologists are not good at making valid predictions. >>> >>>> That was pretty much my point. >>>> >>>> So what other areas of science do you reject? >>> >>> Greenies are confused by the "whooosh" sound they so often hear. >>> >> >> When I speak of man-made global climate change I am speaking of science, >> just as I am when I speak of germ theory. Of course. This is beyond >> obvious. > > ... all the way to ludicrous. > > Germ theory is much more demonstrable than climastrology's claim that > the sky is falling and we're all gonna die ... because ACO2. > >> And you failed to answer the question as to the other areas of science >> you reject. Will you answer now? > > Your question has an invalid premise. > > You made yet another bad assumption, like the aforementioned > misunderstanding of your opponents' motivation. > > 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to > do nothing' > > As previously quoted: > > "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. > They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting > to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they > hope to kill." > > You reject climate science but will not say what other areas of science you reject. Got it. Well, maybe you can answer specifics: Do you accept gender is not as binary as many push? Do you think vaccinations cause autism? Do you accept evolution and reject intelligent design? Do you think GMOs are dangerous? Do you back ketosis diets? Do you accept homeopathy? I am happy to answer all of those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-31 02:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <80hj2ed48fkjupoa9speou9tddd8fe99g1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #721692 |
On 31 Dec 2018 06:23:05 GMT, Snit wrote: >You reject climate science Repetition doesn't make it true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-31 05:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <q0csca$11qq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #721697 |
On 12/31/2018 2:24 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On 31 Dec 2018 06:23:05 GMT, Snit wrote: > >> You reject climate science > > Repetition doesn't make it true. > >> but will not say what other areas of science you >> reject. Got it. Well, maybe you can answer specifics: >> >> Do you accept gender is not as binary as many push? *crickets* >> Do you think vaccinations cause autism? *crickets* >> Do you accept evolution and reject intelligent design? *crickets* >> Do you think GMOs are dangerous? *crickets* >> Do you back ketosis diets? *crickets* >> Do you accept homeopathy? *crickets* -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-31 15:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <g8upasF7rmpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #721692 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 20:18:54 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 12/30/18 8:04 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 16:49:06 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/30/18 4:44 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 21:50:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>>>>>>>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>>>>>>>>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>>>>>>>>>> actively reject it >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... counted by whom? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>>>>>>>>>> the general consensus >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What "general consensus?" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>>>>>>>>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>>>>>>>>>> people make themselves known. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>>>>>>>>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>>>>>>>>>> conform. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>>>>>>>>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>>>>>>>>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>>>>>>>>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>>>>>>>>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>>>>>>>>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>>>>>>>>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>>>>>>>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>>>>>>>>>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>>>>>>>>>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>>>>>>>>>> the very rich. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can deny the science all you want. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What ***the*** science? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >>>>>>>>>> science that can't make valid predictions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can worship the rich all day. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >>>>>>>>>> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>>>>>> hope to kill." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all >>>>>>>> gonna die because of ACO2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" >>>>>>>> and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I accept it as what it is ? the best data we currently have and quite >>>>>>>>> reliable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >>>>>>>>> extend your irrational rejection? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Irrational how? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by >>>>>>>> climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> >>>>>>>> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow >>>>>>>> not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not >>>>>>>> spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not >>>>>>>> be afraid of him" >>>>>>>> (Deuteronomy 18:22). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You reject science and point to religion to try to defend your active >>>>>>> ignorance. Got it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I posted guidance on how to spot a false prophet. >>>>>> >>>>>> What excuse to you offer for the numerous failed predictions of your >>>>>> ***the*** science and its doomsaying "consensus?" >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I talk about science >>>> >>>> Where? >>>> >>>>> and you deny it and talk about religious things. Sure. >>>> >>>> I talked about valid predictions. >>>> >>>> Climastrologists are not good at making valid predictions. >>>> >>>>> That was pretty much my point. >>>>> >>>>> So what other areas of science do you reject? >>>> >>>> Greenies are confused by the "whooosh" sound they so often hear. >>>> >>> >>> When I speak of man-made global climate change I am speaking of science, >>> just as I am when I speak of germ theory. Of course. This is beyond >>> obvious. >> >> ... all the way to ludicrous. >> >> Germ theory is much more demonstrable than climastrology's claim that >> the sky is falling and we're all gonna die ... because ACO2. >> >>> And you failed to answer the question as to the other areas of science >>> you reject. Will you answer now? >> >> Your question has an invalid premise. >> >> You made yet another bad assumption, like the aforementioned >> misunderstanding of your opponents' motivation. >> >> 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to >> do nothing' >> >> As previously quoted: >> >> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >> hope to kill." >> >> > > You reject climate science but will not say what other areas of science you > reject. Got it. Well, maybe you can answer specifics: > > Do you accept gender is not as binary as many push? > > Do you think vaccinations cause autism? > > Do you accept evolution and reject intelligent design? > > Do you think GMOs are dangerous? > > Do you back ketosis diets? > > Do you accept homeopathy? > > I am happy to answer all of those. > > Wally ran. Not at all surprised.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-31 13:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Message-ID | <bnnk2el41conp7he1qhbrh8bm6cfpq01de@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #721729 |
On 31 Dec 2018 15:01:49 GMT, Snit wrote: >Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 20:18:54 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/30/18 8:04 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 16:49:06 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 12/30/18 4:44 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 21:50:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>>>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>>>>>>>>>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively reject it >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... counted by whom? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the general consensus >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What "general consensus?" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>>>>>>>>>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>>>>>>>>>>> people make themselves known. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>>>>>>>>>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>>>>>>>>>>> conform. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>>>>>>>>>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>>>>>>>>>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>>>>>>>>>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>>>>>>>>>>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>>>>>>>>>>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>>>>>>>>>>> the very rich. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can deny the science all you want. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What ***the*** science? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >>>>>>>>>>> science that can't make valid predictions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can worship the rich all day. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >>>>>>>>>>> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>>>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>>>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>>>>>>> hope to kill." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all >>>>>>>>> gonna die because of ACO2. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" >>>>>>>>> and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I accept it as what it is ? the best data we currently have and quite >>>>>>>>>> reliable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >>>>>>>>>> extend your irrational rejection? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Irrational how? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by >>>>>>>>> climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> >>>>>>>>> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow >>>>>>>>> not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not >>>>>>>>> spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not >>>>>>>>> be afraid of him" >>>>>>>>> (Deuteronomy 18:22). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You reject science and point to religion to try to defend your active >>>>>>>> ignorance. Got it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I posted guidance on how to spot a false prophet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What excuse to you offer for the numerous failed predictions of your >>>>>>> ***the*** science and its doomsaying "consensus?" >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I talk about science >>>>> >>>>> Where? >>>>> >>>>>> and you deny it and talk about religious things. Sure. >>>>> >>>>> I talked about valid predictions. >>>>> >>>>> Climastrologists are not good at making valid predictions. >>>>> >>>>>> That was pretty much my point. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what other areas of science do you reject? >>>>> >>>>> Greenies are confused by the "whooosh" sound they so often hear. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When I speak of man-made global climate change I am speaking of science, >>>> just as I am when I speak of germ theory. Of course. This is beyond >>>> obvious. >>> >>> ... all the way to ludicrous. >>> >>> Germ theory is much more demonstrable than climastrology's claim that >>> the sky is falling and we're all gonna die ... because ACO2. >>> >>>> And you failed to answer the question as to the other areas of science >>>> you reject. Will you answer now? >>> >>> Your question has an invalid premise. >>> >>> You made yet another bad assumption, like the aforementioned >>> misunderstanding of your opponents' motivation. >>> >>> 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to >>> do nothing' >>> >>> As previously quoted: >>> >>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>> hope to kill." >>> >>> >> >> You reject climate science but will not say what other areas of science you >> reject. Got it. Well, maybe you can answer specifics: >> >> Do you accept gender is not as binary as many push? >> >> Do you think vaccinations cause autism? >> >> Do you accept evolution and reject intelligent design? >> >> Do you think GMOs are dangerous? >> >> Do you back ketosis diets? >> >> Do you accept homeopathy? >> >> I am happy to answer all of those. >> >> > >Wally ran. Not at all surprised. Your evasive red herrings deserve no attention. Look who ran from these relevant questions still in the text above: Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? What excuse to you offer for the numerous failed predictions of your ***the*** science and its doomsaying "consensus?" Instead, your lead red herring was about gender, which is not relevant to the AGW-scam discussion or on-topic in sci.physics. You and kensi seem to insert the the gender-agenda with little provocation or valid rationale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web