We have been lied to about Global Warming, but WHY?

[PennEd]

Well you guys have us to protect you...and don't need to spend on defense.

I know, right.

As Bad a financial shape as Europe is in right now, can you imagine how bad it would be if we didn't spend OUR taxes protecting them for the past 70 years!

 

[Mitspa]

I know, right.

As Bad a financial shape as Europe is in right now, can you imagine how bad it would be if we didn't spend OUR taxes protecting them for the past 70 years!

Yea so they can spend on silly things like this global warming nonsense.

 

[Human]

WHY I SO TOTALLY LOVE BEING CALLED A ‘CLIMATE DENIER’





A New Mexico physicist has launched a petition - signed by 22,000 Klimate-Kool-Aid-drinkers, and counting – demanding that from henceforward climate sceptics be referred to in the media by their proper name.

That proper name, apparently, is “climate deniers”.
Among the signatories – and really this tells you all you need to know about the credibility of the petition – is the self-styled “Science Guy” Bill Nye.
Though the petition has caused a certain degree of discombobulation in climate sceptical circles, what I say is “bring it on.”
It’s not like it doesn’t happen already: all too often at the BBC, for example, the term “deniers” is already used interchangeably with “sceptics”, for all the world as if it were a respectable, reasonable and accurate epithet.And what I like about it – indeed why I prefer it to the more neutral “sceptic” – is that it tells us so many helpfully negative things about the person who uses it.
It tells us how low they are prepared to stoop in their petulant desperation to slur the opposition, by tacitly equating sensible and valid doubts about the robustness of current climate science groupthink with the far less intellectually tenable position of denying the existence of the Holocaust.

It's arrognat to assume you can know better than the scientific models tell you. You're allowed to say ''I think we should do nothing in the face of scientific evidence'', what's disingenious to say is that you have a better model of predicting climate patterns than the scientific one that exists. You don't. You can't know better than the scientists who study this phenomenon, and to think you do is plain arrogance.

It also tells us how little they value the scientific method and how poorly they grasp the history of science and the philosophy of science. Had they bothered acquainting themselves, for example, with Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, they would understand that scientific knowledge advances in fits and starts. One generation’s “consensus” is the next generation’s phlogiston.

It is in plenty of cases. The fact that scientific knowledge can change doesn't take away from the fact that the current predictions and models are the best we've ever had.

We no longer believe, for example, that malaria (literally “bad air”) is transmitted by the miasma from swamps or that stomach ulcers are caused by stress.

Stress does contribute to stomach ulcers.

But for a period, these beliefs were as much a part of mainstream scientific thinking as “anthropogenic global warming” theory is today.

Miasma theory was discredited in the 1800's, and stood on FAR LESS evidence than we have for anthropogenic climate change.

Presumably, had the internet existed back then, there would have been petitions calling for the purblind fools who opposed those theories “bad air deniers” or “ulcer stress deniers”.

If the internet and the means to create it had existed back then, we wouldn't have believed in Miasma theory, because we'd know about molecules and pathogens.

Those petitions wouldn’t have made those hateful “deniers” any less correct in their novel hypotheses, though, would they?Above all, though, it tells us how sorely ill-equipped intellectually these upholders of the alarmist “consensus” are to deal with their opponents’ arguments.

Not really. It only shows how terrible your arguments are that you have to resort to saying ''In the days when we didn't know about pathogens, people thought Miasma hypthesis was true, thus climate change is false because scientific discovery happens that sometimes diproves hypotheses''.

If “man-made global warming” theory really were such a slam-dunk case there would be absolutely no need to try to silence the opposition with disparaging epithets.

If climate change is true and people like you deny that scientists know what they're talking about, and deny that the climate models are the most accurate ones we have, and make attempts to assert that you know better than the scientists who study it, and you convince other people of your tripe, and the climate IS warming, and because of you nothing is done about it, that's a problem for everyone.

Their position would be demonstrably so foolish that no sensible person would be taken in for a second by their anti-scientific nonsense.But it hasn’t quite worked out that way, has it?

Nobody who is intelligent enough to understand climate science (the plethora of PHD graduates and climatologists, for instance) believes any of your nonsense. Hence why your target audience are evangelicals who believe things without any scientific basis whatsoever. Mate, you believe that your moral commands came from an unobservable omniscient presence communicating through a burning bush to an unknown, historically unverifiable human several milennia ago. You want to talk about scientific validity? lol. Please.

For one thing, more and more evidence seems to be emerging that the ‘science’ behind global warming theory is about as trustworthy as Enron’s annual reports.

You expect me to trust the review of evidence from a conservative opinion-piece website?

And for another, that pesky global weather appears to be proving stubbornly resistant to the warmist narrative.

Weather isn't the same thing as climate, but colder weather in areas is one of the consequences of an average global temperature rise. I'll let you work out how that works.

 

[Mitspa]

Human...you have already been blown out of the water by a previous member ...who showed the data does not show any evidence of real global warming...look at the facts and stop believing these folks who are making this stuff up.

 

[Mitspa]

Look, I get it. I know you've been frantically scouring google after hopefully typing in 'no global warming for 18 years', only to find thousands upon THOUSANDS of links to web pages of all kinds that prove that assertion. It was good try, champ. And you shouldn't beat yourself up over it. It wasn't you who failed, it was the data. There hasn't been any global warming over the last 18 years, and no amount of keyboard mastery here in this board is ever going to change that.

I've enjoyed this time, mostly because I just think it's fun. Heck, if you read my 'About Me', it actually says,
and arguing on the internet with people I've never meant over silly stuff like Global Warming

So, I'll go now, but I do have one serious question for you, and I'd prefer you'd just answer it for yourself:

When you google 18 years with no global warming, you'll find thousands and thousands of results which virtually all agree that there's been no warming for 18 years. But what you'll likely do is you'll look for the relatively few sites who have a way to explain that away and supposedly debunk it. And my guess is that you'll decide to believe what you want to, regardless of the massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. So, here's my question:

When you do this, do you really think that this is the best way to learn? Do you think that this will somehow help you in life?

Remember this?

 

[Human]

I know, right.

As Bad a financial shape as Europe is in right now, can you imagine how bad it would be if we didn't spend OUR taxes protecting them for the past 70 years!

The fact that you started several wars without the ability to pay for them, while lowering taxes, thereby crashing the world economy, are several reasons why we, and everyone else, don't need your protection, or your military, or your stupid republican presidents.

 

[Human]

Human...you have already been blown out of the water by a previous member ...who showed the data does not show any evidence of real global warming...look at the facts and stop believing these folks who are making this stuff up.

Maybe to you I have. But I'm smarter than you are. Argument ad populum means nothing.

 

[Anonimous]

definitely a sticky wicket...

 

[Human]

definitely a sticky wicket...

Getting hit with sponges.

 

[Mitspa]

Maybe to you I have. But I'm smarter than you are. Argument ad populum means nothing.

Well you seem to treat this global warming stuff like a religion and wont look at the evident facts that have been presented to you

 

[Richie_2uk]

It's important that the more and more people get the truth about the climate change hoax that is affecting us all. The evidence is clear now that a relatively few people have foisted thuis hoax on us. But why? I would submit the reason is their desire to push socialism, wealth transfer, and power consolidation. Here is the article proving that these people will gladly lie to try and achieve their goal:

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

Government lies, deciet, money, we been a victim of those things since the day the devil tempted Eve in eden. The devil is the father of all lies, and the goverments today are influenced by the devil's lies, But the thing is, we people has always known about the goverments and scientist and there lies, But what power do we have to do something about it? how can we stand up against them? what can we do? We can't do nothing but pray about it, and let God deal with it. and pray that he will find and appoint a good honest leader. But God does that alreadt, but its sad that the leader turns against God's approval, and quickly goes under the devil's wing sort to say. Its then you see corruptions, lies, and deciet.

 

[andypro]

Maybe to you I have. But I'm smarter than you are. Argument ad populum means nothing.

I'm betting that 97% of all the scientists in the world would disagree with you.
(please figure this one out, I don't want to have to explain)

Where's my 18 year graph?? Still waiting.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Well no. He's from the UK. The British Armed Forces is one of the five recognized nuclear armed military forces and have a sophisticated modern military and a stellar secret intelligence service.

I'd argue that if they left NATO, they'd be able to adequately defend their sovereign state status especially if they engaged in mutual aid peace treaties (either with NATO or simply the nations in closet proximity to themselves).

Like the EU, NATO needs Britain a lot more than Britain needs the EU or NATO.

No, their biggest problem is internal and they created it themselves.

Well you guys have us to protect you...and don't need to spend on defense.

 

[Mitspa]

Well no. He's from the UK. The British Armed Forces is one of the five recognized nuclear armed military forces and have a sophisticated modern military and a stellar secret intelligence service.

I'd argue that if they left NATO, they'd be able to adequately defend their sovereign state status especially if they engaged in mutual aid peace treaties (either with NATO or simply the nations in closet proximity to themselves).

Like the EU, NATO needs Britain a lot more than Britain needs the EU or NATO.

No, their biggest problem is internal and they created it themselves.

Well I don't think they really compare in military might and those of us who have served in that arena ...kinda know that they really are a protectorate of the USA...in military terms...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I think we should turn NATO over to the EU and get out of the bodyguard business myself. But conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation disagree (see: Keeping America Safe: Why U.S. Bases in Europe Remain Vital) arguing that the money spent is offset by having a stable platform of cooperative trade.

I'd argue that can be accomplished through treaty without having to post 80,000 U.S. troops in Europe and spend about a hundred billion a year.

Of course, having a far flung military behemoth does aid in detecting and preventing nuclear proliferation but we could task that solely to the our spy and diplomatic apparatuses.

I know, right.

As Bad a financial shape as Europe is in right now, can you imagine how bad it would be if we didn't spend OUR taxes protecting them for the past 70 years!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm a vet too friend. They aren't a protectorate of the USA if they don't want to be and I argue they don't need to be. What is the scope: to protect the UK. With reorganization, their military and spy apparatus are adequate for that already. Though, I will say if they continue making dramatic cuts in military spending then it won't be.

Well I don't think they really compare in military might and those of us who have served in that arena ...kinda know that they really are a protectorate of the USA...in military terms...

 

[sveinen]

"so many devils, enmity to the cross."

 

[didymos]

"so many devils, enmity to the cross."

One, two, a whole legion... it doesn't matter,
Jesus is Lord.

 

[PennEd]

According to the scientific "experts" this wasn't suppose to happen. They said the Arctic ice would be completely gone in summer months, Islands and sea level cities would be flooded, and snowfall would be a distant memory. Why can't the climate extremists see that they have been duped? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!

NYC braces for coldest day in two decades | New York Post

 

[PennEd]

I challenge Human and other climate extremists to watch this video. Explain how it is that you can still believe the lie from these people:[video=youtube;zVpBjhi0n2s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVpBjhi0n2s[/video]