Making Fun Of Climate Change Alarmists
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Oooh, a dark agenda. That sounds scary! The article, had you bothered to read it, makes fun of the global warming scare mongers, providing legitimate links to what they have said. Please read it and show where the author has attempted to deceive us.
From the comments...
Alexandria Occasional-Cortex
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Alexandria Occasional-Cortex
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Lazy. I just said the same about CNN in another thread but still engaged the OP.
Not even remotely the same. Not even remotely. You may not like that CNN points out your naked emperor, but that's their job.
You dork. It's exactly what I thought. I read it and there's no "experts" as referenced in the headline that say every kind of weather proves global warming is fer real. It's not even factual, it's another shitty editorial that has nothign to do with truth. That website just gaslights and passes on insane conspiracy theories.
if there's a room full of PhD's with imminent credentials on one side stating a proposition in their field of study, and a bunch of toothless, uneducated rednecks stating a dumbass conspiracy theory on the other side, you'll go the toothless conspiracy side every time. It's like a moth to a flame with you.The toothless take. Every time. And proven wrong over and over! And you'll still take the moonshine and conspiracy route every time!
I had never heard of the website until the other day, so I won’t quibble with your assertion about it. The article In the OP, however, shares links from The NY Times, Washington Post, NBC News, USA Today. The Atlantic and others, all of which cite comments from Global Warming “experts,” PhD’s expressing their expertise. Your complaint about the article not being truthful is without merit.
You just recast my statement and then said it was false. Look at the headline of the story. Look at what I stated. I don't know if you deliberately constructed a strawman, but that's a classic case of it.
The thesis is that experts claim every type of weather proves global warming is for real. I'm still looking for the expert that says that. It cites Trump, then CNN )no link) Forbes (no links), washington post (no link), and finally an NBC link that leads with "According to a tweet Tuesday morning from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: “Winter storms don't prove that global warming isn't happening.” and that's not what the title says. As something different. Huh.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The links provided by the article, and there are many of them, are based on comments from the experts you seem to think are missing. Experts who are being cited by the journalists of news sources I’m sure you believe are objective and honest.
It is completely understandable that you take offense at ridicule being directed toward an opinion you hold dear. Once the shock of being made fun of is over maybe you could read the article with a sense of rationalism, putting aside the emotionalism of your first take, and see that the derision possibly has a point.
They always attack the messenger and ignore the message.
There is no functional difference. They are catering to cognitive dissonance just like everyone else. And it’s not serving youvwell to lack the curiosity to dig deeper.
And you will take the narrative from approved sources like a good little useful idiot.
A short while back someone accused me of parroting Breitbart, but I had never heard of it before. I generally visit libertarian websites, not conservative or liberal ones. In this instance it was posted on a libertarian site, and I found it both funny and compelling, so I thought others might like it as well. I neglected to take into account that many people on this board get the vapors if one of their prized beliefs is challenged.
K Dan. Ignore the discussion and repeat yourself. They aren't saying what the title says. The article doesn't even say what the title says. It challenges nothing. If you want to challenge something, you don't do it with Breitbart.
Breitbart was a big topic of discussion during the 2016 Presidential primaries/election, due to Steve Bannon's connection to them. I find it hard to believe that an individual like you, who seemingly pays close attention to politics, would not have even heard of Breitbart prior to the last few days. But, I guess I will have to take your word for it.
Stephen Kevin Bannon (born November 27, 1953) is an American media executive, political figure, strategist, former investment banker, and the former executive chairman of Breitbart News.
My interest has always been more on the philosophical side rather than the gotcha politics that takes place. I had heard of Andrew Breitbart and Steve Brannon, but not of the website. It is apparently a huge oversight on my part!
You’re just being silly. The title says “Experts Say” (or something to that effect) and the article makes fun of prognostications made by experts as reported by journalists, as provided by multiple links. You’re going to great lengths to discount the article by splitting hairs! It’s just a silly article pointing out the absurdly stupid predictions that have not come true. Lighten up, Brother! It’s not a federal case.
Last edited:
K dan. Land on a tone and I'll match it.
My.opinion is that your source is incredible, as their bait and switch essay is. I am beyond talking offense at attacks on the consensus science on climate change, its fact. There is always a lunatic fringe that reaches for the moonshine when science calls. Vaccines. Flat earthers. Climate. Fluoride. Goes on forever.
One of the funniest things the man pointed out was CNN harping on the melting of the polar ice caps were going to cause flooding of New York, as predicted by experts, while at the same time they were moving a chunk of their operation to New York. I ask you to tell me who is being incredible in that situation? Surely you aren’t denying that the so-called consensus experts were forecasting the flooding of New York. It was on the news ad nauseum.
As for your assertion of consensus science I believe there is a hotly contested debate on that front.
The whole point of the article was to make fun of some of the most preposterous claims made by climate change alarmists. Whether it’s a hot spell causing a drought or a cold snap with blizzard conditions there will be an alarmist at the beck and call of the media, someone the media will tout as an expert, explaining that it is further proof the world is heating up, and it’s humanity’s fault. You are an intelligent man. You should have a serious amount of skepticism about these claims. It does the world no good for people like you to drink the koolaid with such alarming devotion.
You mistated the thesis which is your problem (assuming you aren't being obtuse on purpose, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). The thesis isn't that every expert states that every weather type is proof of global warming, but rather that you can find a global warming expert who will state that a specific weather event (no matter what it might be) was caused by global warming. And that thesis is not wrong.
When you have tens of thousands of scientists, from every country on Earth, spanning all religions and political affiliations generally agree on something, I think it needs to taken seriously.
Back in the early 1960s , one of the most controversial US operations was Project Starfish Prime. It was the detonation of high yield Thermonuclear warheads ( 1.2 megaton) at high altitude (300 miles) above Johnston Atoll in the pacific. Scientists around the world were alarmed and raised many concerns as you might imagine. The US Government countered by getting the most famous and who many thought was the most credible scientist of the time, James Van Allen, to address the world and say there was no problem at all doing this. He later said that was biggest mistake of his professional career, and we are still detecting anomalies caused by these detonations. What I am trying to say is that when you have many experts saying one thing and a few against them, you should probably listen to the many
Back in the early 1960s , one of the most controversial US operations was Project Starfish Prime. It was the detonation of high yield Thermonuclear warheads ( 1.2 megaton) at high altitude (300 miles) above Johnston Atoll in the pacific. Scientists around the world were alarmed and raised many concerns as you might imagine. The US Government countered by getting the most famous and who many thought was the most credible scientist of the time, James Van Allen, to address the world and say there was no problem at all doing this. He later said that was biggest mistake of his professional career, and we are still detecting anomalies caused by these detonations. What I am trying to say is that when you have many experts saying one thing and a few against them, you should probably listen to the many
Really nice weather out there the last couple of days. Looks like it’s going to be nice until Thursday then turn cold. Be sure to get to the store before then and load up on all the esssentials.
Science doesn't work by consensus. Ever.
Climate change is much like evolution actually.
On a micro level both are quite provable. You can show the temperature rise with increase of certain gasses. Just as you can show proof of organisms modifying over time to adapt to environmental changes.
What you can't prove yet is macro evolution that humans came from apes. That's still a theory. Just as you can't prove the entire Earth will change with the introduction of certain gasses. Both are theory.
Where the left fails is trying to act like the theory is proven and settled science. It isn't. Do yourself a favor and quit acting like it is. It makes you look like the true science denier.
i was unaware there are tens of thousands of scientists from around the world whose specialty is the study of climate change. If you are referring to scientists whose field of study is not climate change, then I see no more need to regard them as reliable as I would a local car mechanic who has an understanding of mechanical engineering. The notion that the science is settled has been disproven long ago, for, as ostatedchi points out, science is never settled. If science can be settled then we would still believe the earth is flat, as virtually every scientist believed that to be true at one time.
Last edited:
The left has created a literal religion out of man-made
The climate has been changing since the earth was created. Believing that the climate has ever been or ever will be static is beyond stupid. Humans cannot stop the climate from changing no matter how egotistical we are about our perceived importance.
Agree with all of that. But that shouldn't prevent us from being good stewards of the earth. We have a responsibility to clean as we go to whatever extent we can. And that's the left's error in all this.
Don't try to force us to cut our energy supply off for some BS. But, appeal to our better nature of doing the right thing. We'll do the right thing.
Absolutely agreed. Arbitrary temperature targets to "prevent" bullshit alarmist predictions should not guide our energy policy. Our energy policy should be guided by common sense use of our current resources and the development of more efficient and cleaner energy production in the future.
Takes me back to my Organic Chemistry professor. While at the chalkboard teaching some section of the textbook he would say, "what is printed is what used to be thought....until I proved them wrong".
Or the general consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle until proven they were caused by bacteria and antibiotics would get rid of them easily. They were pretty much shunned for a time. You know, until they won the Nobel prize for medicine.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery
As I have said on here many times.....man influenced climate change is common sense.......when you have closed system, you pump unnatural amounts of compounds into the atmosphere, you destroy the natural filtering system it is going to have an effect in some way. Everything in nature is a balancing act, and when unnatural amounts are introduced, it changes the balance
You use words like 'unnatural' and 'destroy' on one hand and 'science' on the other. You do realize how ignorant that makes you sound?
To me it is so common sense it shouldn't take scientist to say it.......but it does......for some people.......scientists have been warning about human influenced climate change for decades before it rose to the scale of the debate it is today........Carl Sagan warned about it in the 1970s........You can look at most anything and debate it........you can debate General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, neither has been proven absolutely 100%, but if they were not significantly correct many things we use in everyday life would not work properly
