7 ms·

That is because climate alarmism has been around for quite a while and anybody who has memory longer than a goldfish's can easily recollect the promised catastr

That is because climate alarmism has been around for quite a while and anybody who has memory longer than a goldfish's can easily recollect the promised catastrophes which just didn't happen. Anti-vaccine nonsense is often painted as refusal to do all vaccines (there are nuts like that but they are few) rather than not exactly groundless suspicion that SOME new vaccines and aggressive vaccination regiments are pushed onto public not for the benefit of people but rather for the benefit of pharmas and because of evident willful misrepresentation of potential for dangerous side effects - not to mention that the very notion of forced medication strikes many people as utterly totalitarian. These movements are growing precisely because of persistent lying, exaggerations, and totalitarian inclinations of people who promote climate "change" (a good example of Orwellian newspeak, isn't it?) and ever-growing number of must-do vaccines as reason for more taxation and more corporate welfare. A normal human reaction to being forced to submit is to resist. Even if force is supposed to be for the victim's own good.

fzeroracer 8y ago
> These movements are growing precisely because of persistent lying, exaggerations, and totalitarian inclinations of people who promote climate "change" (a good example of Orwellian newspeak, isn't it?) What complete and utter bullshit. Yes, not all of the predictions behind climate change have come true; science evolves and new predictions or estimations are made as advancements in technology grow. Yet we've seen many of the predictions come true and many far worse things start to pop up, including the mass decline of insects worldwide and the rapidly rising sea level.
- SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
  "we've seen many of the predictions come true... including the mass decline of insects worldwide" Interesting you should mention that. No doubt you're referring to the recent study [1], heavily pushed by the likes of The Guardian [2], the Washington Post and the BBC, warning of the "collapse of nature" due to declining insect population. Did you also know that this study turned out to be flawed to the point of uselessness? So flawed in fact that the Global Warming Policy Foundation sent a complaint to its publishers and is calling for its withdrawal? [3] I think you unwittingly just proved aveross' point vis-à-vis 'climate alarmism'... [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti... [3] https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/ https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    You realize that the Global Warming Policy Foundation is a climate change skeptic organization, correct? They're entirely founded upon climate change denial. So what exactly kind of bullshit were you trying to pull by implying that they were an authority on climate change? Either you were ignorant of the GWPF or you were deliberately misconstruing them in attempt to gaslight.
    - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
      Do you have anything to say about the actual substance of the complaint? Are you denying that the paper is based on flawed data? Have you even read the complaint? You can attack the organization all you like, but you havent actually shown that the complaint is unjustified.
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        So it's gaslighting, then? Why in the hell should I believe reporting from an organization whose entire stated purpose is to spread FUD and has knowingly in the past lied about the various points it's attempted to raise? If the paper is based off of flawed data, then I assume you can find an actual credible source willing to address this. If you can give me a credible source by all means I would be happy to admit I'm wrong. What you've given me is trash disguised as something credible. Especially since in your original post you implied that they were a climate change authority. There's a lot of bullshit that I try to ignore, but I expect better than that.
        SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
        You seem very angry about this. Here's what we know: The paper compares temperature data primarily from a single weather station 'El Verde', starting in 1978. [1] The operators of the weather station say themselves that the data is unreliable, that papers have already drawn erroneous conclusions based on it, and that it shouldn't be used for calculating long term trends. [2] Here's a few quotes from [2], but please read the whole thing. "Subsequent manipulations make the EVFS record less valuable for interpreting long term trends." "After September 1992, recorded maximum temperatures increased substantially at this station, certainly as a result of the instrumentation changes that took place in that month." "correction ceased to be applied to these maximum temperature data in 1997, and as a result, the EVFS maximum temperature record (LUQ data set 16) showed an abrupt increase in maximum temperature in 1997." "This partially corrected data set is the one we made accessible to people on our web site and through ClimDB until Feb 2014. At least one paper has reached erroneous conclusions about long term trends based on these data (Huey et al. 2009)." "The differences in instrumentation have introduced differences in the data between these two periods, and treating them as a single data set misrepresents the data." Knowing this, I think it's fair to say that any data prior to 1997 is invalid. Now take the graph in [1] and disregard 1997 backwards, and it paints an entirely different picture doesn't it? [1] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/image_thumb-85.png?w=765&h=774 https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/... [2] http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16 http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16
scottishfiction 8y ago
> Anti-vaccine nonsense is often painted as refusal to do all vaccines (there are nuts like that but they are few) rather than not exactly groundless suspicion that SOME new vaccines Would you class the measles vaccine as new? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/15/measles-who-warns-cases-have-jumped-50 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/15/measles-who-... In both your points regarding climate change and vaccinations, you show yourself as an apologist for anti-science causes.

fzeroracer 8y ago

> These movements are growing precisely because of persistent lying, exaggerations, and totalitarian inclinations of people who promote climate "change" (a good example of Orwellian newspeak, isn't it?) What complete and utter bullshit. Yes, not all of the predictions behind climate change have come true; science evolves and new predictions or estimations are made as advancements in technology grow. Yet we've seen many of the predictions come true and many far worse things start to pop up, including the mass decline of insects worldwide and the rapidly rising sea level.

SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
"we've seen many of the predictions come true... including the mass decline of insects worldwide" Interesting you should mention that. No doubt you're referring to the recent study [1], heavily pushed by the likes of The Guardian [2], the Washington Post and the BBC, warning of the "collapse of nature" due to declining insect population. Did you also know that this study turned out to be flawed to the point of uselessness? So flawed in fact that the Global Warming Policy Foundation sent a complaint to its publishers and is calling for its withdrawal? [3] I think you unwittingly just proved aveross' point vis-à-vis 'climate alarmism'... [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti... [3] https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/ https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  You realize that the Global Warming Policy Foundation is a climate change skeptic organization, correct? They're entirely founded upon climate change denial. So what exactly kind of bullshit were you trying to pull by implying that they were an authority on climate change? Either you were ignorant of the GWPF or you were deliberately misconstruing them in attempt to gaslight.
  - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
    Do you have anything to say about the actual substance of the complaint? Are you denying that the paper is based on flawed data? Have you even read the complaint? You can attack the organization all you like, but you havent actually shown that the complaint is unjustified.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      So it's gaslighting, then? Why in the hell should I believe reporting from an organization whose entire stated purpose is to spread FUD and has knowingly in the past lied about the various points it's attempted to raise? If the paper is based off of flawed data, then I assume you can find an actual credible source willing to address this. If you can give me a credible source by all means I would be happy to admit I'm wrong. What you've given me is trash disguised as something credible. Especially since in your original post you implied that they were a climate change authority. There's a lot of bullshit that I try to ignore, but I expect better than that.
      - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
        You seem very angry about this. Here's what we know: The paper compares temperature data primarily from a single weather station 'El Verde', starting in 1978. [1] The operators of the weather station say themselves that the data is unreliable, that papers have already drawn erroneous conclusions based on it, and that it shouldn't be used for calculating long term trends. [2] Here's a few quotes from [2], but please read the whole thing. "Subsequent manipulations make the EVFS record less valuable for interpreting long term trends." "After September 1992, recorded maximum temperatures increased substantially at this station, certainly as a result of the instrumentation changes that took place in that month." "correction ceased to be applied to these maximum temperature data in 1997, and as a result, the EVFS maximum temperature record (LUQ data set 16) showed an abrupt increase in maximum temperature in 1997." "This partially corrected data set is the one we made accessible to people on our web site and through ClimDB until Feb 2014. At least one paper has reached erroneous conclusions about long term trends based on these data (Huey et al. 2009)." "The differences in instrumentation have introduced differences in the data between these two periods, and treating them as a single data set misrepresents the data." Knowing this, I think it's fair to say that any data prior to 1997 is invalid. Now take the graph in [1] and disregard 1997 backwards, and it paints an entirely different picture doesn't it? [1] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/image_thumb-85.png?w=765&h=774 https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/... [2] http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16 http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16

scottishfiction 8y ago

> Anti-vaccine nonsense is often painted as refusal to do all vaccines (there are nuts like that but they are few) rather than not exactly groundless suspicion that SOME new vaccines Would you class the measles vaccine as new? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/15/measles-who-warns-cases-have-jumped-50 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/15/measles-who-... In both your points regarding climate change and vaccinations, you show yourself as an apologist for anti-science causes.