5 ms·

> they are more religious than some religious people about their science. There is no correlation between people concerned about high estimated damage using th

> they are more religious than some religious people about their science. There is no correlation between people concerned about high estimated damage using the current best effort science (warming of 3-4'C) and dogma without evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary you will have definitely earned that Nobel prize and million bucks.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fearai 7y ago
what type of data do you prefer? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/21/climate-crisis-more-politically-polarizing-than-abortion-for-us-voters-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/21/climate-cris... also we are supposed to be "sceptics" in the science community but your scientists like to manipulate language for political reasons and call sceptics "deniers", a very religious move: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...
- baron_harkonnen 7y ago
  You can watch the Arctic melt before your eyes[1] and we will very likely see an ice free Arctic for the first time in at least 100,000 years in our lifetime. Claiming that isn't happening isn't "skepticism" it is denying what you can easily verify with your own eyes. But let me ask you a very important question that will easily settle where the dogma lies. What would convince you that climate change is happening? Because there is apple evidence all around us and yet you seem determined not to see it, so what would change you mind? If nothing then there's really no point having a discussion. [1]. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
  - Iwan-Zotow 7y ago
    apple -> ample
  - fearai 7y ago
    totally believe the earth is getting warmer. never said otherwise. weaponizing weather for political gain is disgusting and not scientific. skepticism is a fundamental pillar of science but the we are told to call them "deniers" to swing sentiment and get votes. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...
    - aplummer 7y ago
      seriously do the legwork and publish, then you won’t be a conspiracy theorist
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      Climate and weather are different things. I totally agree that it's terrible some pepole are "weaponizing" weather for political gain by claiming that occasional cold weather in the winter is a disproof of a warming climate -- is that what you are referring to? Because that's terrible science. Even if it sounds skeptical.
      - fearai 7y ago
        using Orwellian newspeak to change words to match your "scientific" agenda should be considered an attack on science and not regurgitated by people who believe the agenda. no conspiracy, they don't hide the manipulation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-... well aware climate and weather are different and so is the Green New Deal leader who was schooled last week https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1131676480281427968 https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1131676480281427968
- jordanbeiber 7y ago
  Were the scientist hired by Exxon in the 70’s also participating in this political scheme? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... I’d love to hear how the sceptics turn this fact in to present day politics. Policy seems to be the only way we can sort this future mess out btw.
  - fearai 7y ago
    Yes. Thank you for providing more evidence that scienists are bought for political gain. And you want "policy" based on scientists? lol
    - jordanbeiber 7y ago
      Well the scientist gave word, and the Exxon board covered it up, so... yes please! Preferably policy is made based on facts and common sense. If you’ve ever worked a reasonably complex system I’m sure you’ll agree that minuscule changes or additions can have unforeseen and sometimes devastating consequences. In large systems of complexity you usually end up with really weird, cascading issues. Things triggering other things, hitting edges etc. I don’t think I ever worked anything remotely as complex a system as the earth (or... have I?), but looking at the graphs of co2 since the beginning of industrialization it’s quite clear we are making massive changes to a system that have had many thousands of years to get in tune. Couple this with the fact that almost all experts in related fields seem to agree that the changes we’re seeing will be destructive and also difficult to mitigate you have something that just simply makes sense. It would be utterly foolish not to make policy of it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fearai 7y ago

what type of data do you prefer? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/21/climate-crisis-more-politically-polarizing-than-abortion-for-us-voters-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/21/climate-cris... also we are supposed to be "sceptics" in the science community but your scientists like to manipulate language for political reasons and call sceptics "deniers", a very religious move: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

baron_harkonnen 7y ago
You can watch the Arctic melt before your eyes[1] and we will very likely see an ice free Arctic for the first time in at least 100,000 years in our lifetime. Claiming that isn't happening isn't "skepticism" it is denying what you can easily verify with your own eyes. But let me ask you a very important question that will easily settle where the dogma lies. What would convince you that climate change is happening? Because there is apple evidence all around us and yet you seem determined not to see it, so what would change you mind? If nothing then there's really no point having a discussion. [1]. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
- Iwan-Zotow 7y ago
  apple -> ample
- fearai 7y ago
  totally believe the earth is getting warmer. never said otherwise. weaponizing weather for political gain is disgusting and not scientific. skepticism is a fundamental pillar of science but the we are told to call them "deniers" to swing sentiment and get votes. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...
  - aplummer 7y ago
    seriously do the legwork and publish, then you won’t be a conspiracy theorist
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    Climate and weather are different things. I totally agree that it's terrible some pepole are "weaponizing" weather for political gain by claiming that occasional cold weather in the winter is a disproof of a warming climate -- is that what you are referring to? Because that's terrible science. Even if it sounds skeptical.
    - fearai 7y ago
      using Orwellian newspeak to change words to match your "scientific" agenda should be considered an attack on science and not regurgitated by people who believe the agenda. no conspiracy, they don't hide the manipulation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-... well aware climate and weather are different and so is the Green New Deal leader who was schooled last week https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1131676480281427968 https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1131676480281427968
jordanbeiber 7y ago
Were the scientist hired by Exxon in the 70’s also participating in this political scheme? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... I’d love to hear how the sceptics turn this fact in to present day politics. Policy seems to be the only way we can sort this future mess out btw.
- fearai 7y ago
  Yes. Thank you for providing more evidence that scienists are bought for political gain. And you want "policy" based on scientists? lol
  - jordanbeiber 7y ago
    Well the scientist gave word, and the Exxon board covered it up, so... yes please! Preferably policy is made based on facts and common sense. If you’ve ever worked a reasonably complex system I’m sure you’ll agree that minuscule changes or additions can have unforeseen and sometimes devastating consequences. In large systems of complexity you usually end up with really weird, cascading issues. Things triggering other things, hitting edges etc. I don’t think I ever worked anything remotely as complex a system as the earth (or... have I?), but looking at the graphs of co2 since the beginning of industrialization it’s quite clear we are making massive changes to a system that have had many thousands of years to get in tune. Couple this with the fact that almost all experts in related fields seem to agree that the changes we’re seeing will be destructive and also difficult to mitigate you have something that just simply makes sense. It would be utterly foolish not to make policy of it.