First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply How do people feel about being lied to about the Climate?
Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 2/13/13 , edited 2/13/13

AmaranthTehDrood wrote:

Wait a minute!

People this stupid actually exist ?



I'm sorry, but you are the one that is stupid and ignorant, ironically. Go put on that monkey suit now. Did you even do any research on this subject?


10114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 2/13/13
When I meet anti climate change people I use the same argument and it works.

Me: "Do you believe in climate change?"

Them: "Hell no, its a bunch of bullshit!"

Me: "Ok well, do you want clean air and clean water?"

Them: "Of course!"

Me: "Well the things you have to do to get clean air and clean are the same things that would be needed if climate change was real."

Works everytime.
Posted 2/13/13


I'm sorry, but you are the one that is stupid and ignorant, ironically. Go put on that monkey suit now. Did you even do any research on this subject?


Actually yes. I have researched it im in a few Geography, weather and climate courses in college. It's not a big mystery that the climate is warming up. It's a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is actually stupid.

We are not being lied to! all the facts are right in front of us.
Unfortunately people don't want to take the time to even look at them.
The problem is that we can never know for 100% what is causing it warm up, thats a Fact.
we have narrowed it down to a few possibilities
-the release of greenhouse gases
-Chlorofluorocarbon emission(this has been halted in 1st world countries, but third world countries continue to use it.)
-Just a natural Cycle of the earth ( Ice ages, warm ages) we could be entering a warmer age in this cycle.

The scientific community is not lying to us. The media may have misinterpreted the facts on many occasions. Obviously we should be trying to keep the environment clean, this isn't even just about global warming, there is no reason to pollute the air, water and ground.

so ya, people who both argue that a) we don't have the truth, b) ignore the hard fact the Global Warming exists or c)believe anything that mainstream media spoonfeeds us without even questioning or thinking about the things they say, are Stupid.
the people who aren't stupid? those of us who aren't oblivious to the facts that have been presented, those of us who fucking think for more then three seconds, those of us who actually wan't to keep the environment clean for future generations.

So don't go calling me stupid. How about you actually make a retort and tell me your beliefs and what you think is right.
Wihl 
18690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
L5
Offline
Posted 2/23/13
AmaranthTehDro said it well. Most scientific discussion I monitored (reading Nature, Science and few other journals) are concerned how to mix different type of data. Data from ocean studies differ from land measurements, different absorption and reflection coeffients. Land measurements are more sensitive to where measured. Some of the land stations that are label rural are really now urban (hotter) so you have to time course the adjustments to the data. Satellite data is good and global, but only recent as is the measuring of the solar flux, the biggest energy input into the system and it is not constant.

It is not a simple process to get the data as accurate as possible, much less getting to if specific human factors are a significant influence.

If you want data just go to one of the biggest collectors in the world, NOAA, they have a web site www.climate.gov . See what the scientists are up to and if you don't trust them, download the numbers and do it yourself.
21028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 3/19/13 , edited 3/19/13

mhibicke wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:
Firstly, have you read any scientific papers at all before claiming that the scientific community is setting an "agenda"?

I'm tired of people coming on the internet complaining about how science "lies" when they have minimal scientific knowledge.

Secondly, human activities have affected the atmosphere before, specifically the ozone layer, the use of CFC has created a huge ozone hole near Antarctica and thinned the ozone layers elsewhere, that's why you see increased amount of Skin Cancer diagnosis. The Sun affect life on Earth too, obviously, because of its dangerous rays and heat, bushfire occur in Australia EVERY summer.

So climate change is caused by the combination of both the Sun's solar activity and humans' unnatural activities (specifically the release of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere).

Why does it have to be one or the other? Depression can be caused by chemical imbalance or environmental factors or both. The Earth's climate can be affected by the Sun and human activities, it doesn't need just one reason.

Thank you GayAsianBoy.


dingofoxman wrote:
I am curious to see how many people out there are observing the complete failure from the scientific community who are paid to ****ing monitor it, being honest about drastic climate change that doesn't want to be throughlly discussed or researched, but blamed on things that do not apply itself to reality or science but sure suites powerful shitty peoples agendas..and how people refusing to see this affects people who are noticing it?
...
Negative responds will be ignored (that doesn't mean difference of opinion or sarcasm, it means being an uneducated asshole with nothing nice to say)


I am also sick of being blamed for the ignorance of others. Sorry, but I am an asshole on this subject.

First of all, the scientific community isn't being paid shit to monitor the climate. SOME climatologists get funding from SOME sources, SOME of which are likely government grants. But it's not like once you are a scientist you get put on the climate payroll or anything.

Second of all, the scientific community isn't lying about anything. Rather, it is non-scientists (politicians, business people, etc) who don't care what the scientific community is saying and make shit up to suit their own agendas. It's not like this is anything new - look at how many people think Intelligent Design is a legitimate "alternative" to teach in science classes. So just back up that blame train a bit and start reading peer-reviewed articles from legitimate journals instead of getting your science information from newscasters.

GayAsianBoy, made many accurate statements about climatic effects from both humans and environment, I'd like to include the fact that the temperature of the sun is also rising and will continue to do so until it goes supernova some 6 billion years +/- from now. So the problem is both environmental and human. But the human element is quickly pushing up the stakes. Yet no one wants to talk about controlling population growth, and we are overpopulated. And yes governments and corporations, etc... do indeed have a great deal of control with regards to information. Interesting 2009 Gallup poll on global awareness of global warming. Look through the poll if your interested. Check out www.gallup.com/poll/117772/Awareness-Opinions-Global-Warming-Vary-Worldwide.aspx the numbers haven't changed that much over the last 3.5 years. It will make you feel better as to your ignorance on this subject. As I recall U.S. sat somewhere below 50% ratio when knowledge of human cause of global warming. And I use the word ignorance benevolently not malevolently. I always appreciate people who are aware of their lack of knowledge. Check out Amaranth TehDro above also made some very valid and accurate points as well.


3422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/19/13 , edited 8/27/13
Anyone who still thinks that man made climate changes is a lie is an idiot.
26733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 3/19/13

Boganis wrote:
Yet no one wants to talk about controlling population growth, and we are overpopulated.


I would love to talk about overpopulation! I was living in Utah until recently and that place is crawling with children.
21028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 3/19/13 , edited 3/19/13

mhibicke wrote:


Boganis wrote:
Yet no one wants to talk about controlling population growth, and we are overpopulated.


I would love to talk about overpopulation! I was living in Utah until recently and that place is crawling with children.


Phenomenal and interesting topic. Did you read the forum about a month ago regarding if and how many children members are planning to have? It seemed at the time the average was approximately 3 children per member, I had hoped to see educated and responsible answers but I was sorely disappointed. The U.S. is currently supporting a childbearing average of 2.5 children/woman creating or more accurately supporting our current 313+ million population, a number of scientists and statisticians have approximated that the U.S. population needs to be at a number closer to 150 million to sustainably support our resources, which would mean reducing our childbearing average to 1.5 children/woman for the next 100 years to achieve a figure in the range of 150 million. Between our governments Ponzi scheme economics plan which supports itself upon population growth and corporations need for economic growth which supports itself on a similar foundation we'll never see a focus educational or otherwise on this issue. The majority of the world is only concerned with their short term goals (lifetime) not even acknowledging let alone caring for anything long term. A couple of very interesting books on this topic are "The Limits to Growth" by Meadows it was a compendium put together by MIT for the elite of the elite back in the 70's, they recently wrote an adjunct but it is lacking in a lot of model data. Paul Ehrlich's books "The Dominant Animal" and "The Population Bomb" are very informative books as well.
26733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 3/19/13

Boganis wrote:

Phenomenal and interesting topic. Did you read the forum about a month ago regarding if and how many children members are planning to have? It seemed at the time the average was approximately 3 children per member, I had hoped to see educated and responsible answers but I was sorely disappointed. The U.S. is currently supporting a childbearing average of 2.5 children/woman creating or more accurately supporting our current 313+ million population, a number of scientists and statisticians have approximated that the U.S. population needs to be at a number closer to 150 million to sustainably support our resources, which would mean reducing our childbearing average to 1.5 children/woman for the next 100 years to achieve a figure in the range of 150 million. Between our governments Ponzi scheme economics plan which supports itself upon population growth and corporations need for economic growth which supports itself on a similar foundation we'll never see a focus educational or otherwise on this issue. The majority of the world is only concerned with their short term goals (lifetime) not even acknowledging let alone caring for anything long term. A couple of very interesting books on this topic are "The Limits to Growth" by Meadows it was a compendium put together by MIT for the elite of the elite back in the 70's, they recently wrote an adjunct but it is lacking in a lot of model data. Paul Ehrlich's books "The Dominant Animal" and "The Population Bomb" are very informative books as well.

I think I avoided that topic. I have one child, whom I treasure, and I refuse to have any more. For some strange reason, I have total strangers telling me I "never know" how many children I'll have, and how it's cruel of me to force my child to grow up lonely and sad with no siblings.
Well, since I know how babies are made I know how to avoid having any more, and children aren't like chips - you can stop with one (or none)!
As for the long-term implications of overpopulation and population regulation, I haven't educated myself on the numbers for the US. I noticed that the reduction in birthrate to trim the population to 150 million doesn't take into account immigration, or the economic implications of having more elderly and retirees than the working population can support. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
21028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 3/20/13

mhibicke wrote:


Boganis wrote:

Phenomenal and interesting topic. Did you read the forum about a month ago regarding if and how many children members are planning to have? It seemed at the time the average was approximately 3 children per member, I had hoped to see educated and responsible answers but I was sorely disappointed. The U.S. is currently supporting a childbearing average of 2.5 children/woman creating or more accurately supporting our current 313+ million population, a number of scientists and statisticians have approximated that the U.S. population needs to be at a number closer to 150 million to sustainably support our resources, which would mean reducing our childbearing average to 1.5 children/woman for the next 100 years to achieve a figure in the range of 150 million. Between our governments Ponzi scheme economics plan which supports itself upon population growth and corporations need for economic growth which supports itself on a similar foundation we'll never see a focus educational or otherwise on this issue. The majority of the world is only concerned with their short term goals (lifetime) not even acknowledging let alone caring for anything long term. A couple of very interesting books on this topic are "The Limits to Growth" by Meadows it was a compendium put together by MIT for the elite of the elite back in the 70's, they recently wrote an adjunct but it is lacking in a lot of model data. Paul Ehrlich's books "The Dominant Animal" and "The Population Bomb" are very informative books as well.

I think I avoided that topic. I have one child, whom I treasure, and I refuse to have any more. For some strange reason, I have total strangers telling me I "never know" how many children I'll have, and how it's cruel of me to force my child to grow up lonely and sad with no siblings.
Well, since I know how babies are made I know how to avoid having any more, and children aren't like chips - you can stop with one (or none)!
As for the long-term implications of overpopulation and population regulation, I haven't educated myself on the numbers for the US. I noticed that the reduction in birthrate to trim the population to 150 million doesn't take into account immigration, or the economic implications of having more elderly and retirees than the working population can support. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.


I loved your gambling analogy, some how it's very appropriate. Don't worry about your child, I'm sure that he or she will survive being an only child, most of them do. And I've rarely heard any grown only children complaining that they missed having siblings.
No the 150 million number did not take into account immigration. But the statement regarding government economics was partially directed (sorry at least in my mind if not written) towards that issue. Have you noticed that very few politicians are questioning immigrants remaining in this country, they all seem to be focused on proposals which offer a legal means to validate their status. And as to the growing elderly population this as well as a great many other issues would need to be debated on with regards to any reduction in population. Again this isn't even a topic of discussion within the government. Oh, yes Obama does have John Holdren as a technology and science adviser but there aren't any proposals regarding population change being proposed within the government at this time that I am aware of. With such a large number of people retaining their health and mental acuity to a later age in life the fact of the matter is that the age for retirement needs to be raised. As I recall Social Security was originally created with the consideration and research of the average retiree remaining alive for less than 10 years, the last time I heard the current number of years a retiree is surviving after retirement it was in excess of 10 years and with the large number of baby boomers retiring or preparing to retire, discussions on this issue will become far more imperative. I personally have always questioned why someone would want to retire or survive beyond inability (heck I even have plans ranging from over the counter insulin to a P30S if I'm confronted with this possibility). I can understand wanting a change your career after 40 years in the same field, so change and find something challenging and stimulating, not to mention useful to work on for the remainder of your life. I can't imagine but I suppose others can. But I've digressed, my apologies.
With regards to immigration and population check out Teo Chee Hean's (Singapore's deputy prime minister) recent proposals on population growth within Singapore, should make for interesting following.
26733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 3/20/13

Boganis wrote:
I loved your gambling analogy, some how it's very appropriate. Don't worry about your child, I'm sure that he or she will survive being an only child, most of them do. And I've rarely heard any grown only children complaining that they missed having siblings.
No the 150 million number did not take into account immigration. But the statement regarding government economics was partially directed (sorry at least in my mind if not written) towards that issue. Have you noticed that very few politicians are questioning immigrants remaining in this country, they all seem to be focused on proposals which offer a legal means to validate their status. And as to the growing elderly population this as well as a great many other issues would need to be debated on with regards to any reduction in population. Again this isn't even a topic of discussion within the government. Oh, yes Obama does have John Holdren as a technology and science adviser but there aren't any proposals regarding population change being proposed within the government at this time that I am aware of. With such a large number of people retaining their health and mental acuity to a later age in life the fact of the matter is that the age for retirement needs to be raised. As I recall Social Security was originally created with the consideration and research of the average retiree remaining alive for less than 10 years, the last time I heard the current number of years a retiree is surviving after retirement it was in excess of 10 years and with the large number of baby boomers retiring or preparing to retire, discussions on this issue will become far more imperative. I personally have always questioned why someone would want to retire or survive beyond inability (heck I even have plans ranging from over the counter insulin to a P30S if I'm confronted with this possibility). I can understand wanting a change your career after 40 years in the same field, so change and find something challenging and stimulating, not to mention useful to work on for the remainder of your life. I can't imagine but I suppose others can. But I've digressed, my apologies.
With regards to immigration and population check out Teo Chee Hean's (Singapore's deputy prime minister) recent proposals on population growth within Singapore, should make for interesting following.

Hmmm... I think that fixing our health care system so that we can provide adequate care for a reasonable cost will be more effective than increasing the age at which one can collect social security. Many people at retirement have monthly health care premiums and fees that require most or all of their monthly social security check, and that is a keeping in mind that they also have access to Medicare.

I think it will be very interesting to watch Japan and see how they manage the problems that come from an aging population. China has a more dramatic age gap due to their efforts at population control this century, but Japan's economy is more similar to ours. We may have actually been able to avoid the real estate fallout of 2008 and the subsequent recession if we had paid more attention to Japan in the late 1990's. Instead, we made the same mistakes and were surprised when the same thing happened to us.

Two major differences between Japan and the US with respect to the economics of an aging population are 1) the Japanese are the most healthy people in the world, Americans are... not, and 2) Japanese have kaihoken, a universal health care system, which is in part responsible for the Japanese being the most healthy people in the world.

I am unfamiliar with Teo Chee Hean's proposals. Do you have any good links?
743 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / CA
Offline
Posted 4/6/13

AmaranthTehDrood wrote:



I'm sorry, but you are the one that is stupid and ignorant, ironically. Go put on that monkey suit now. Did you even do any research on this subject?


Actually yes. I have researched it im in a few Geography, weather and climate courses in college. It's not a big mystery that the climate is warming up. It's a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is actually stupid.

We are not being lied to! all the facts are right in front of us.
Unfortunately people don't want to take the time to even look at them.
The problem is that we can never know for 100% what is causing it warm up, thats a Fact.
we have narrowed it down to a few possibilities
-the release of greenhouse gases
-Chlorofluorocarbon emission(this has been halted in 1st world countries, but third world countries continue to use it.)
-Just a natural Cycle of the earth ( Ice ages, warm ages) we could be entering a warmer age in this cycle.

The scientific community is not lying to us. The media may have misinterpreted the facts on many occasions. Obviously we should be trying to keep the environment clean, this isn't even just about global warming, there is no reason to pollute the air, water and ground.

so ya, people who both argue that a) we don't have the truth, b) ignore the hard fact the Global Warming exists or c)believe anything that mainstream media spoonfeeds us without even questioning or thinking about the things they say, are Stupid.
the people who aren't stupid? those of us who aren't oblivious to the facts that have been presented, those of us who fucking think for more then three seconds, those of us who actually wan't to keep the environment clean for future generations.

So don't go calling me stupid. How about you actually make a retort and tell me your beliefs and what you think is right.



Dude got told by an 18 year old, LMAO!
21028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 7/10/13

lordseth23 wrote:

What was the lie?


Yeah, that was my question??? Still laughing...
5656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F
Offline
Posted 7/10/13
Haha, oops. I totally read the topic as, "how do people feel about being lied to about the climax?" I thought this thread was going to be about something different until I re-read the topic.
31425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 7/11/13

WednesdayBookLove wrote:

Haha, oops. I totally read the topic as, "how do people feel about being lied to about the climax?" I thought this thread was going to be about something different until I re-read the topic.


Lol, I think that would be a far more interesting topic than this one.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.