Should we bow in fear and run away from this phrase?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Sable
When we hear the phrase "Scientists said so."

What are the all the things scientists said so, so that means is fact? And who are these scientists? Are they above or beyond reproach, what is their record, what are their names, credentials I should bow in fear to when their anonymous names are brought up in conversations.

Who are these scientists that we should all live in fear when we hear their name?

Robtard
IMO, you shouldn't go to the doctor ever again. What do they know anyways. Lab test/results? Pfft, probably more fake news.

Sable
Im fine with going to the doctor and seeing him face to face. Seeing his or her credentials on the wall. But in a conversation online or in person when I hear "Scientists said so" makes me cringe.

Surtur
I agree, not all scientists are equal. I'd want to know about their work, etc.

Sable
In the phrase it's rigged to leave our any room for requestioning the unnamed and unknown scientist.

Robtard

Sable
That guy is a self absorbed fraud.

Surtur

Sin I AM
Originally posted by Sable
When we hear the phrase "Scientists said so."

What are the all the things scientists said so, so that means is fact? And who are these scientists? Are they above or beyond reproach, what is their record, what are their names, credentials I should bow in fear to when their anonymous names are brought up in conversations.

Who are these scientists that we should all live in fear when we hear their name?

Lol.

Because its not about science nor their credentials. Its about challenging fundamental beliefs that shake a persons core values.

People appreciate smart phone technology, we like the science of how are cable works (no-one is hassling the IT guy about what school he went to), every piece of equipment from calculators to microwave ovens involve science.

But when a scientist(s) tells you something that goes againt family, God and country beliefs (essentially my family didnt raise me to believe that, my religion doesnt teach that, my politial party is against that) we discredit anything counter-intuitive.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Lol.

Because its not about science nor their credentials. Its about challenging fundamental beliefs that shake a persons core values.

People appreciate smart phone technology, we like the science of how are cable works (no-one is hassling the IT guy about what school he went to), every piece of equipment from calculators to microwave ovens involve science.

But when a scientist(s) tells you something that goes againt family, God and country beliefs (essentially my family didnt raise me to believe that, my religion doesnt teach that, my politial party is against that) we discredit anything counter-intuitive.

^

Bin.....GO!

Sable
Climate change isn't about God or Religion though. It's bout wether it's an made or part of lifem. The climate has been changing for billioss of years.

Surtur
So just to be crystal clear here: we are saying it is wrong to ask to see credentials? I just want that made plainly clear if that is the case lol.

Beniboybling
What a title. laughing out loud

cdtm
Originally posted by Sable
When we hear the phrase "Scientists said so."

What are the all the things scientists said so, so that means is fact? And who are these scientists? Are they above or beyond reproach, what is their record, what are their names, credentials I should bow in fear to when their anonymous names are brought up in conversations.

Who are these scientists that we should all live in fear when we hear their name?

Scientists are beyond reproach if they toe the line.

If they challenge the orthodoxy, they get marginalized.

See: Noam Chomsky. The neo-liberal left (The ones who control the corporations that own network news) distances themselves from him as much as the right does.

Professors also only cite his views with heavy reservations..

Sin I AM
Originally posted by Sable
Climate change isn't about God or Religion though. It's bout wether it's an made or part of lifem. The climate has been changing for billioss of years.

Based on what...? Science perhaps?

Originally posted by Sable
Im fine with going to the doctor and seeing him face to face. Seeing his or her credentials on the wall. But in a conversation online or in person when I hear "Scientists said so" makes me cringe.

You bring up a good point.

I assume youve read articles on parents who refuse to allow children to receive one form of medical treatment or another. Its never about the doctors merits, his medical science, scientific equipment (x-rays, cat scans) etc....its because their God does not allow it. Youre challenging peoples faith...so they rather allow death than live with the thought that they were misguided or simply wrong.

Sin I AM
Originally posted by Surtur
So just to be crystal clear here: we are saying it is wrong to ask to see credentials? I just want that made plainly clear if that is the case lol.


How do you, John Doe from Podunk Iowa, accurately judge a scientists "credentials"?

Surtur
Originally posted by Sin I AM
How do you, John Doe from Podunk Iowa, accurately judge a scientists "credentials"?

Where he went to school and what he has possibly done in the past, not a whole lot would be needed I don't want the entire life story of this person. You act like to ask is to immediately say the person is lying.

The bigger the scientific claim? The more I want to know about the scientists.

cdtm
Sin, the medical community have also perscribed things that were later found to do much more harm then good.

It's a double edged sword, and skepticism is definately warrented based on history.

Surtur
Originally posted by cdtm
Sin, the medical community have also perscribed things that were later found to do much more harm then good.

It's a double edged sword, and skepticism is definately warrented based on history.

I experienced that, being given meds that were not good for you. Also I would bring up how people sometimes get second opinions if given a major diagnosis(like something life threatening)

Sin I AM
Originally posted by Surtur
Where he went to school and what he has possibly done in the past, not a whole lot would be needed I don't want the entire life story of this person. You act like to ask is to immediately say the person is lying.

The bigger the scientific claim? The more I want to know about the scientists.

You are deflecting a tad. How should i phrase this....ok. So by knowing his school that proves what exactly? And what do you mean by his past? Be specific. If you were my patient and walked into my office and wanted to evaluate my abilities provide me with a step-by-step breakdown of how youd do that?


Originally posted by cdtm
Sin, the medical community have also perscribed things that were later found to do much more harm then good.

It's a double edged sword, and skepticism is definately warrented based on history.

Nowhere did i state to blindly follow. Doing your own research is fine. The nature of science is trial and error.

HOWEVER, hand-waving away a theory without first-hand knowledge is silly.

Steve Zodiac
Climate Change deniers, funny stuff, did you guys know the world is flat..? No really! Someone on youtube said it!

Robtard
I named dropped Neal deGrasse Tyson and he was basically dismissed away as just some pheg. Anti-sciencers don't want to know facts, they just want to hear what they believe in a never ending echo-chamber

Patient_Leech

Robtard
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Rob, you're wasting your time. If people don't value evidence for establishing facts then there is no evidence that you can provide to convince them because they don't value evidence in the first place!!

Yup, NdG is basically just a know-nothing turd or something

Sin I AM
Originally posted by Robtard
Yup, NdG is basically just a know-nothing turd or something

Have you seen any counter arguments from scientists denying change? I cant find any

Robtard
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Have you seen any counter arguments from scientists denying change? I cant find any


No, but we have this guy who's better than some whacky scientist showing proof that human activity affecting the planet and climate change are just what we now know to be "fake news".

https://cleantechnica.com/files/2015/12/Inhofe.jpg

shiv

Flyattractor
The only SCIENCE in Climate Change is Political Science.

Sin I AM

Robtard
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Sigh

Exactly.

The data is the data, so it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when" and how extreme. Sure the timetables are changing and it's something these nuts latch onto as justification for denial, but that's the nature of scientific research. Better methods and newer data changes the current models. But the model isn't ever in the "oh, it's actually getting better, we need more pollution" direction.

So with that in mind, I suggest that when it's clear in XX amount of years and can no longer be denied due to people having to move further away from coastal areas cos the oceans magically got closer, crops dying to heat and lowered pollination rates due to decreasing bee colonies etc., all these deniers do the world and "we need to all get together on this, it's a human issue" people a solid and commit suicide (painless, of course). Less people means less pollution, less mouths to feed. But they won't, they'll just wash their hands of all accountability with "How were we supposed to know!" thoughts.

Surtur
Originally posted by Sin I AM
You are deflecting a tad. How should i phrase this....ok. So by knowing his school that proves what exactly? And what do you mean by his past? Be specific. If you were my patient and walked into my office and wanted to evaluate my abilities provide me with a step-by-step breakdown of how youd do that?

Lady, just no. You've tried and failed. Provide you with a step by step breakdown? Lol.

People are getting triggered over asking for credentials. I'm not going to play your game, it's asinine.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Robtard
Anti-sciencers don't want to know facts, they just want to hear what they believe in a never ending echo-chamber

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LeafyMeekDodobird-max-1mb.gif

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly.

The data is the data, so it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when" and how extreme. Sure the timetables are changing and it's something these nuts latch onto as justification for denial, but that's the nature of scientific research. Better methods and newer data changes the current models. But the model isn't ever in the "oh, it's actually getting better, we need more pollution" direction.

So with that in mind, I suggest that when it's clear in XX amount of years and can no longer be denied due to people having to move further away from coastal areas cos the oceans magically got closer, crops dying to heat and lowered pollination rates due to decreasing bee colonies etc., all these deniers do the world and "we need to all get together on this, it's a human issue" people a solid and commit suicide (painless, of course). Less people means less pollution, less mouths to feed. But they won't, they'll just wash their hands of all accountability with "How were we supposed to know!" thoughts.

This diatribe aka "RANT" from the guy that belives that Gender is controlled by the power of....

https://media.tenor.com/images/02b6d29d6784facd9ec3b00ddec553b2/tenor.gif

shiv
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Sigh

Si why do you sigh

Surtur
Originally posted by shiv
Si why do you sigh

Weird thing is we had someone sighing about other stuff being ignored, but what you posted sure was dismissed and hell you posted multiple articles not just one.

It's different though. Why? Reasons.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LeafyMeekDodobird-max-1mb.gif


Yes. The left does this ALL the time.

Sable

Robtard
So if someone is diagnosed with cancer they should not do a thing, cos you know, I'm sure someone somewhere has been misdiagnosed before.

https://i.imgur.com/3anN4lt.jpg

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
So if someone is diagnosed with cancer they should not do a thing, cos you know, I'm sure someone somewhere has been misdiagnosed before.

https://i.imgur.com/3anN4lt.jpg

Do you believe a woman can be born into a mans body?

Robtard
I believe the neuroscience studies that show when a transgender person's brain makeup and chemistry more closely relate to the brain patterns of the opposite sex of their body, yes. Why? Cos science thumb up

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
I believe the neuroscience studies that show when a transgender person's brain makeup and chemistry more closely relate to the brain patterns of the opposite sex of their body, yes. Why? Cos science thumb up

So yes you believe a woman can be born in a mans body. Fair enough.

Robtard
If the science backs it, sport thumb up

This is the point where you dismiss the neurosciences, btw

Flyattractor
More like if the Correct Political Party Backs the Science... then he will back it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
If the science backs it, sport thumb up

This is the point where you dismiss the neurosciences, btw

So you feel the science is 100% certain about transgenders, with no counter arguments? Just tell me you feel it has been decided 100%. Or 99%. Hell I'll give you 90%.

shiv

Surtur
^^ yeah, but....science, and shit.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
So you feel the science is 100% certain about transgenders, with no counter arguments? Just tell me you feel it has been decided 100%. Or 99%. Hell I'll give you 90%.

If you have scientific counter-arguments, sure, I'm all eyes and ears and open to change. So post them smile

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
If you have scientific counter-arguments, sure, I'm all eyes and ears and open to change. So post them smile

So you won't answer my question? Okay.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Surtur
So you won't answer my question? Okay.

As He Ever answered you ?

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
So you won't answer my question? Okay.

I literally just did, you suggested that there's scientific counter arguments; I asked you to post them as I'm open to change and you dodged posting them.

So it seems your counter argument is that you're disgusted by trans people and this is just how you feel. But we already knew that.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
I literally just did, you suggested that there's scientific counter arguments; I asked you to post them as I'm open to change and you dodged posting them.

So it seems your counter argument is that you're disgusted by trans people and this is just how you feel. But we already knew that.

I asked if you felt it was 100%, etc. I see no answer.

Flyattractor
Well that answers that question....and the answer is "no".

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
I asked if you felt it was 100%, etc. I see no answer.


Until there's a proper scientific counter argument to the neuroscience (as you suggested), yes. Why would I think otherwise.

So, post them now and change my mind? Weird that you're dodging this.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Until there's a proper scientific counter argument to the neuroscience (as you suggested), yes. Why would I think otherwise.

So, post them now and change my mind? Weird that you're dodging this.

You say post things, but all I asked was how much you believe in it. Why does that trigger you so much? Stand up for your beliefs without whining.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Robtard
Until there's a proper scientific counter argument to the neuroscience (as you suggested), yes. Why would I think otherwise.

So, post them now and change my mind? Weird that you're dodging this.


Unless that Neurosurgeon is some one like Ben Carson. Then it don't count.

Because Politics.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
You say post things, but all I asked was how much you believe in it. Why does that trigger you so much? Stand up for your beliefs without whining.

^

Another dodge. Very telling

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
^

Another dodge. Very telling

Are you trolling again? Serious question.

Robtard
Just like your breath, your games grow stale, Surt. You clearly asked and questioned the science. I asked you to show the counter argument and that I was open to change, you then became dodge and dance boy.

Why do you discredit the neuroscience testing behind it?

The Lost
Originally posted by Robtard
Just like your breath, your games grow stale, Surt. You clearly asked and questioned the science. I asked you to show the counter argument and that I was open to change, you then became dodge and dance boy.

Why do you discredit the neuroscience testing behind it?

You have more patience than me. I already want to drop a cinderblock on my own head talking with this dude in another thread.

Sable

Sable

Robtard
Originally posted by The Lost
You have more patience than me. I already want to drop a cinderblock on my own head talking with this dude in another thread.


Lolz, but yeah, I get where you're coming from.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Sable
Again another great post just skipped over. Proving scientists can be complete shitholes and sell outs pushing an agenda like they did for big tabacco.

And don't forget how they Shell out for Climate Change and Gender Issues. They do that a lot.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
Again another great post just skipped over. Proving scientists can be complete shitholes and sell outs pushing an agenda like they did for big tabacco.

So using this logic we can safely assume that all gun owners are dangerous murders just waiting to murder. Cos you know, I can pull up some gun murderers. Go to know thumb up

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Robtard
So using this logic we can safely assume that all gun owners are dangerous murders just waiting to murder. Cos you know, I can pull up some gun murderers. Go to know thumb up

Only if you would find it ok if a oh say a video was put up of Bill Ayers condoning the use of Violence to push your political ideas and then it was used to say that every one that votes Left/Democrat is indeed a violent thug who condones things like murder to push their political agenda.


cool

Sin I AM
Originally posted by Surtur
Lady, just no. You've tried and failed. Provide you with a step by step breakdown? Lol.

People are getting triggered over asking for credentials. I'm not going to play your game, it's asinine. Originally posted by Surtur
So you won't answer my question? Okay.


The irony

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
So using this logic we can safely assume that all gun owners are dangerous murders just waiting to murder. Cos you know, I can pull up some gun murderers. Go to know thumb up

I'm not saying it as a blanket statement but it proves scientists can be shitholes.

Flyattractor
Sort of like how The Left keeps toting Bill Nye and his views and He isn't even a real scientis, yet the like to pretend that he is.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
So using this logic we can safely assume that all gun owners are dangerous murders just waiting to murder. Cos you know, I can pull up some gun murderers. Go to know thumb up

False equivalency, gimme another. Try not to use guns as a medium. It doesn't fit,

Robtard
Nope. It's using one smaller example and applying it to the greater, in a negative manner. Works both ways.

Sable
Lol now you are being weird.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Robtard
Nope. It's using one smaller example and applying it to the greater, in a negative manner. Works both ways.

Also known as LYING!

Something the LEFT is very good at.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
I'm not saying it as a blanket statement but it proves scientists can be shitholes.

No one here has argued that scientist can't be flawed. That was the narrative you invented; then pushed it on others and then attacked that.

cdtm
Originally posted by Robtard
So using this logic we can safely assume that all gun owners are dangerous murders just waiting to murder. Cos you know, I can pull up some gun murderers. Go to know thumb up

What about:

The food pyramid:

https://breakingmuscle.com/healthy-eating/what-is-healthy-eating-turning-the-food-pyramid-upside-down






More then a few bad apples, this is the very definition of an entire institution, backed by the government, being formed by politics. The pyramid was made based on a concession to the grain/corn industry. And we've been paying for it in all the diseases that come from overconsumption of carbs..

Sable
there are big bucks to be made on climate change. Just ask Al Gore, read those articles about scientists can fake tests and manufacture proof.

Sable
Originally posted by cdtm
What about:

The food pyramid:

https://breakingmuscle.com/healthy-eating/what-is-healthy-eating-turning-the-food-pyramid-upside-down






More then a few bad apples, this is the very definition of an entire institution, backed by the government, being formed by politics. The pyramid was made based on a concession to the grain/corn industry. And we've been paying for it in all the diseases that come from overconsumption of carbs..

Wow great find, yes the food pyramid is just another example of scientists selling out to big agra.

This could possibly be the best example of scientists dead wrong but that same example based on "proof" is what our government/ Agra relies on to feed the masses.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
there are big bucks to be made on climate change. Just ask Al Gore, read those articles about scientists can fake tests and manufacture proof.

Sure, there are some rotten apples in the barrel. Doesn't mean you throw them all out.

Is antiscience really something you want to get behind?

Flyattractor
If we did, we would be Leftist like You Robbie.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Sure, there are some rotten apples in the barrel. Doesn't mean you throw them all out.

Is antiscience really something you want to get behind?

It's more then ome rotten apple. It was a poisen apple to poisen the well. The food pyramid is literally taught in public schools. Educating kids on how to be healthy but masquerading as the complete opposite of how to be healthy.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Sure, there are some rotten apples in the barrel. Doesn't mean you throw them all out.

Is antiscience really something you want to get behind?

I believe in real science, not science of fear.

People wouldn't care about hurricanes if they never hit land. Cause it didn't doesn't affect them.

-Pr-
Four pages and I haven't seem one person mention Mac's little speech from IASIP. Sloppy.

Zgk8UdV7GQ0

==

But seriously, scientists can be dicks. They can even be wrong. They regularly are, until they all get together, gather evidence, and find the right answer. Which they do. Regularly, on things like climate change, for example.

But no, something something liberal leftists.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
It's more then ome rotten apple. It was a poisen apple to poisen the well. The food pyramid is literally taught in public schools. Educating kids on how to be healthy but masquerading as the complete opposite of how to be healthy.

Our food pyramid is crap because of food lobbyist buying their way in. What does that have to do with anything here?

Originally posted by Sable
I believe in real science, not science of fear.

People wouldn't care about hurricanes if they never hit land. Cause it didn't doesn't affect them.


Okay, what "real science" is telling you that pollution and climate change is all a hoax?

The Lost
Originally posted by Sable
I believe in real science, not science of fear.

People wouldn't care about hurricanes if they never hit land. Cause it didn't doesn't affect them.

Yet, you'd reject the real science that would explain why someone would care more when massively strong winds and storms are within closer proximity to them.

People like you pick and choose. Using "real" and "science" together should embarrass you.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Our food pyramid is crap because of food lobbyist buying their way in. What does that have to do with anything here?




Okay, what "real science" is telling you that pollution and climate change is all a hoax?

America pollutes less then any other nation for its size and population. We literally lead the world, yet we constantly need to punish ourselves for some bullshit climate agenda?

I am literally the greenest person on this forum and you can vouch for that, but I don't believe in transferring our wealthy with deals like Paris to reach artificial goals.

Robtard

cdtm
Originally posted by -Pr-
Four pages and I haven't seem one person mention Mac's little speech from IASIP. Sloppy.

Zgk8UdV7GQ0

==

But seriously, scientists can be dicks. They can even be wrong. They regularly are, until they all get together, gather evidence, and find the right answer. Which they do. Regularly, on things like climate change, for example.

But no, something something liberal leftists.

My main problem is finding examples of researchers admitting to an institutional problem when it comes to criticising peers.

Essentially, the way it works is everyones concerned with getting funding, and don't want to make an enemy and hurt their chances of being approved..

Which doesn't mean the whole thing should be thrown out, but it definately has issues.

Just look at mental health sciences, and you'll find things that make you wonder if that particular institution is less science, and more cult ala scientology, where nobody ever tells the Emperor they have no clothes on..

Sin I AM
Originally posted by cdtm


Just look at mental health sciences, and you'll find things that make you wonder if that particular institution is less science, and more cult ala scientology, where nobody ever tells the Emperor they have no clothes on..

Explain

cdtm
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Explain

Freud is one example.. Very authoritarian, refused dispute, and refused to subject himself to psychoanlysis, as he pushed it on all of his proteges or people or interest.

And his disciples continue to directly cite his work decades after his death, or quote each other quoting him, which rarely happens in an evolving science..

Sable

Sable
Originally posted by Beniboybling
What a title. laughing out loud

laughing out loud


Glad you saw the humor in itsmile

-Pr-
Originally posted by cdtm
My main problem is finding examples of researchers admitting to an institutional problem when it comes to criticising peers.

Essentially, the way it works is everyones concerned with getting funding, and don't want to make an enemy and hurt their chances of being approved..

Which doesn't mean the whole thing should be thrown out, but it definately has issues.

Just look at mental health sciences, and you'll find things that make you wonder if that particular institution is less science, and more cult ala scientology, where nobody ever tells the Emperor they have no clothes on..

Don't get me started on mental health sciences. Seriously, I take serious issue with a lot of that.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Sable
laughing out loud


Glad you saw the humor in itsmile I did, since it suggested you are afraid of science. sad

BackFire
Wrong thread. Ignore.

Sable
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I did, since it suggested you are afraid of science. sad

Cheap shot

Steve Zodiac
Originally posted by Sable
NOAA was just busted for altering climate data, I take what they say with a grain of salt.

FL is like 3-4 ft above sea level at its lowest points, probably less in some areas, but there is still dry land.

If the sea level really is rising, then why not make mass desal plants, use the water, sell it to nations who need fresh water to pay the cost. America could literally become the fresh water producer of the world.

We could actually pay our debt off by selling fresh water. In Europe no reputable Psychiatrist or Psychologist would describe themselves as Freudian... Seriously.

Flyattractor
Mother issues I bet.

Surtur
Originally posted by The Lost
You have more patience than me. I already want to drop a cinderblock on my own head talking with this dude in another thread.

Lmao.

Surtur
Originally posted by Sin I AM
The irony

Lol, a simple question is not the same as the homework assignment you assigned me. This is some of what you asked:

"Be specific. If you were my patient and walked into my office and wanted to evaluate my abilities provide me with a step-by-step breakdown of how youd do that?"

A step by step break down, lol. The question I asked Rob could be answered with a single sentence.

Sable
What do you think the % is of people who care about climate change or global warming actually live a sustainable green lifestyle?

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
NOAA was just busted for altering climate data, I take what they say with a grain of salt.

FL is like 3-4 ft above sea level at its lowest points, probably less in some areas, but there is still dry land.

If the sea level really is rising, then why not make mass desal plants, use the water, sell it to nations who need fresh water to pay the cost. America could literally become the fresh water producer of the world.

We could actually pay our debt off by selling fresh water.

Probably another waste of time, but: "NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data: A tabloid used testimony from a single scientist to paint an excruciatingly technical matter as a worldwide conspiracy." Link

And NASA? Are they liars too?

Okay, the point is the pattern of rise, not that tomorrow Florida will be underwater. This type of 'it's either happened right now, or it's a hoax' mentality is a huge problem

The rest of what you said is just loonier. Desalination plants exist now; they're not dependent on rising sea levels, this has nothing to do with climate change.

Sin I AM
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, a simple question is not the same as the homework assignment you assigned me. This is some of what you asked:

"Be specific. If you were my patient and walked into my office and wanted to evaluate my abilities provide me with a step-by-step breakdown of how youd do that?"

A step by step break down, lol. The question I asked Rob could be answered with a single sentence.

Nice dodge. If youre incapable of answering just say so. One abidged response to what i asked could be summed up in 1 sentence.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably another waste of time, but: "NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data: A tabloid used testimony from a single scientist to paint an excruciatingly technical matter as a worldwide conspiracy." Link

And NASA? Are they liars too?

Okay, the point is the pattern of rise, not that tomorrow Florida will be underwater. This type of 'it's either happened right now, or it's a hoax' mentality is a huge problem

The rest of what you said is just loonier. Desalination plants exist now; they're not dependent on rising sea levels, this has nothing to do with climate change.

👍

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Probably another waste of time, but: "NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data: A tabloid used testimony from a single scientist to paint an excruciatingly technical matter as a worldwide conspiracy." Link

And NASA? Are they liars too?

Okay, the point is the pattern of rise, not that tomorrow Florida will be underwater. This type of 'it's either happened right now, or it's a hoax' mentality is a huge problem

The rest of what you said is just loonier. Desalination plants exist now; they're not dependent on rising sea levels, this has nothing to do with climate change.

I consider NASA's climate change department loons. Nothing I said about Desal is loony.

Yes we have a few, we could have hundreds. If the oceans are rising that much, why not start converting it into freshwater.

Also the waste water which would be considered brackish water would be used to restore the marshes and estuaries in many places like CA and Florida where they are disappearing.

Sable
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I did, since it suggested you are afraid of science. sad

But I suggested no such thing.. I actually implied the opposite through sarcasm.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
I consider NASA's climate change department loons. Nothing I said about Desal is loony.

Yes we have a few, we could have hundreds. If the oceans are rising that much, why not start converting it into freshwater.

Also the waste water which would be considered brackish water would be used to turn the marshes and estuaries in many places like CA and Florida where they are disappearing.

Why am I not surprise. Guess the satellite data is also fake news.

Desal plants are not dependent on rising sea levels. The US could build them right now and have the same affect, but again, this has nothing to doing with warming global mean temperatures and increased levels of sea-level-rise.

Sable
I am not saying they are dependent, I am saying we could use them to combat rising sea levels.

Sable
Again, America is the greenest country on the planet, we have the most restrictive fuel standards. California has a dedicated Smog regulator, and the Clean Air Act. As well, we have a broad range of renewable energy platforms across a wide spectrum. We also have Telsa and GM who pioneer the way for electric cars here in America.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Sable
Again, America is the greenest country on the planet laughing

Sable
For our size and population who is greener? Certainly not the UK.

Sin I AM
Originally posted by Robtard
Why am I not surprise. Guess the satellite data is also fake news.

Desal plants are not dependent on rising sea levels. The US could build them right now and have the same affect, but again, this has nothing to doing with warming global mean temperatures and increased levels of sea-level-rise.

You two are having completely different conversations

Originally posted by Sable
Again, America is the greenest country on the planet

Smh...

shiv
When people say: Scientists Say


It's incomplete data

And it indicates ......., ......, ......., ...... and ........


It should be:

Scientists at The Earth Institute say

Scientists at NASA say

Scientists at The International Research Institute for Climate and Society

Scientists at CERN The European Organisatioin for Nuclear Research

Scientists at Italy's Policlinico Gemelli

Acknowledgments

References

Credit

You can't give credit, you can't give respect, you can't consult with people who are uncredited.

Btw Man Made Climate Change is Real

Gender Science Application of: Should be left to people who are above voting age If you're a boy and you like to do ballet and stuff thats cool guys do ballet and stuff let kids discover themselves define themselves put their own individual stamp on their character if they have questions let them form their own questions and ask their questions in their own language.

I say this because (and it's a story I shouldn't tell)

a social worker who is a friend of mine
it's about a referral, a person under their care
gender reassignment
long proccess, several stages
surgical procedures were successful

All I am going to say on this is I have never seen a person more concerned for another persons welfare as that social worker was. This social worker had a real heart of gold that case and another case which involved contracting adult companions for uh a really vulnerable person who lets just say, it was better the state did it and leave it at that.

Those two cases (some of the things which were going on) when my friend called me to say that they had handed in their resignation and were considering a change in career It was no surprise.

On Gender Reassignment Guys/Girls the science and the scenery the person is in are both of mega significance.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Sable
For our size and population who is greener? Certainly not the UK. The UK ranks considerably higher than the States on the Environmental Performance Index yes, as do 24 other countries. laughing out loud

But then again, that index was put together by scientists. eek!

Robtard
Originally posted by Sin I AM
You two are having completely different conversations



Smh...

Pollution/climate change is one of those things that the "it's not happening, it's a hoax" people will never get on board until shit gets REALLY bad; even then they'll likely just wash their hands of it.

Look at Los Angeles in the late 60's/ early70's as a micro example. Denied, denied, denied until the smog was so bad it'd block out the sun at times and people's eyes would sting and water.

China's only coming on board in the last decade or so since their city bound populations are suffering ill health due to their massive smog problems.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Sable
Again, America is the greenest country on the planet, we have the most restrictive fuel standards.

Yeah, *facepalm*

http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/top_10_emitters.png

Sable
Originally posted by shiv
When people say: Scientists Say


It's incomplete data

And it indicates ......., ......, ......., ...... and ........


It should be:

Scientists at The Earth Institute say

Scientists at NASA say

Scientists at The International Research Institute for Climate and Society

Scientists at CERN The European Organisatioin for Nuclear Research

Scientists at Italy's Policlinico Gemelli

Acknowledgments

References

Credit

You can't give credit, you can't give respect, you can't consult with people who are uncredited.

Btw Man Made Climate Change is Real

Gender Science Application of: Should be left to people who are above voting age If you're a kid be a boy and you like to do ballet and stuff thats cool guys do ballet and stuff let kids discover themselves define themselves put their own individual stamp on their character if they have questions let them form their questions and ask their own questions in their own language.

I say this because (and it's a story I shouldn't tell)

a social worker who is a friend of mine
sometimes even psychiatrists and social workers need counselling
It's about a referral, a person under their care
Gender Reassignment
Long Proccess Several Stages
The surgical procedures were successful

All I am going to say on this is I have never seen a person more concerned for another persons welfare as that social worker was. This social worker had a real heart of gold that case and another case which involved contracting adult companions for uh a really vulnerable person who uh lets just say that it was better the state did it than left the vulnerable person to do so. Those two cases some of the things which were going on when my friend called me to say that they had handed in their resignation considering a change of career It was no surprise.

On Gender Reassignment Guys/Girls the science and the scenery the person is in are both of mega significance.

Great post

Sable
Originally posted by Beniboybling
The UK ranks considerably higher than the States on the Environmental Performance Index yes, as do 24 other countries. laughing out loud

But then again, that index was put together by scientists. eek!

Fair enough considering you have a vastly smaller population. I am sure that makes a difference.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Beniboybling
The UK ranks considerably higher than the States on the Environmental Performance Index yes, as do 24 other countries. laughing out loud

But then again, that index was put together by scientists. eek!


Scientists being paid to FIND these results by Leftist Fascist
Politicians.

Always remember to add that bit.

Surtur
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Nice dodge. If youre incapable of answering just say so. One abidged response to what i asked could be summed up in 1 sentence.

You wanted a step by step breakdown of what I'd do. That is longer than one sentence.

Also just clarify, are we dealing with conservative Sin today or liberal Sin? One day you're saying you're a staunch conservative, the next you're a liberal. You remember that, right? How you flip flopped when convenient? It wasn't even an "I agree with certain things from both sides". It was just one day you're conservative, the next you aren't.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
Fair enough considering you have a vastly smaller population. I am sure that makes a difference.

The US ranks at #7 in worst polluters per capita. The UK comes in at #25.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
The US ranks at #7 in worst polluters per capita. The UK comes in at #25.

And the size and population of the UK vs US is what?

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Robtard
The US ranks at #7 in worst polluters per capita. The UK comes in at #25.

Could that be because the U.S is SEVERAL Times Larger then the Combined U.K? And that the U.S. also has Much, Much more industry in it then the dead and dying economy formally known as Great Britan?

Could this be considered Biased View Point?

Oh and I don't see Robbie throwing any of his Leftist Shit at China? Who in His opinion should be far FAR More GUILTY in the ECO CRIMES Arena?

Why you not getting all Anti China Robbie?

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
And the size and population of the UK vs US is what?

UK - 65mil, USA = 323mil

But that's why I listed the "per capita" rankings, sport. Do less drugs, okay?

per cap-it-a

adverb & adjective

-for each person; in relation to people taken individually.

Flyattractor
So you admit you skewed the results of you response to push your Political Bias then?

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
UK - 65mil, USA = 323mil

But that's why I listed the "per capita" rankings, sport. Do less drugs, okay?

per cap-it-a

adverb & adjective

-for each person; in relation to people taken individually.

Christ almighty I asked you a question Rob lol. Stop flipping out.

Robtard
^ Look at this fool trying to cover up his ignorance :0

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Look at this fool trying to cover up his ignorance :0

Lol but...I asked you a question Rob. If I was ignorant and wanted to cover it up wouldn't I just pretend like I already knew the answer? Instead of actively engaging you and asking?

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Look at this fool trying to cover up his ignorance :0

*reported for name calling*


Ah who am I kidding!



laughing out loud

Sin I AM
Originally posted by Surtur
You wanted a step by step breakdown of what I'd do. That is longer than one sentence.

Also just clarify, are we dealing with conservative Sin today or liberal Sin? One day you're saying you're a staunch conservative, the next you're a liberal. You remember that, right? How you flip flopped when convenient? It wasn't even an "I agree with certain things from both sides". It was just one day you're conservative, the next you aren't.

Concession accepted. Stop deflecting Surtur its disconcerting. If you dont know or are simply ignorant.. say you dont know. Im not falling for your theatrics.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pollution/climate change is one of those things that the "it's not happening, it's a hoax" people will never get on board until shit gets REALLY bad; even then they'll likely just wash their hands of it.

Look at Los Angeles in the late 60's/ early70's as a micro example. Denied, denied, denied until the smog was so bad it'd block out the sun at times and people's eyes would sting and water.

China's only coming on board in the last decade or so since their city bound populations are suffering ill health due to their massive smog problems.


Its because people hate accepting responsibility.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Sin I AM





Its because people hate accepting responsibility.


That is why people vote Democrat.

Steve Zodiac
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Look at this fool trying to cover up his ignorance :0

True

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
True

For once I agree. You are an Ignorant Fool.

Steve Zodiac
Originally posted by Flyattractor
For once I agree. You are an Ignorant Fool. #triggered

Surtur
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Concession accepted. Stop deflecting Surtur its disconcerting. If you dont know or are simply ignorant.. say you dont know. Im not falling for your theatrics.

What theatrics? Like flip flopping on if you're conservative or liberal depending on what day of the week it is?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
For once I agree. You are an Ignorant Fool.

Leave Steve alone. He is obviously in love with Rob, follows him around like a little puppy. I don't have the heart to just go "He's just not that into you". I almost feel bad for the poor little tyke.

Steve Zodiac
Originally posted by Surtur
What theatrics? Like flip flopping on if you're conservative or liberal depending on what day of the week it is?



Leave Steve alone. He is obviously in love with Rob, follows him around like a little puppy. I don't have the heart to just go "He's just not that into you". I almost feel bad for the poor little tyke. I like women kid, even some of my exes, it's why I'm not online everyday... Stop projecting. wink

Sin I AM
Originally posted by Surtur
What theatrics? Like flip flopping on if you're conservative or liberal depending on what day of the week it is?



Leave Steve alone. He is obviously in love with Rob, follows him around like a little puppy. I don't have the heart to just go "He's just not that into you". I almost feel bad for the poor little tyke.

Sigh, it was a simple question guy.

Be yourself surt, quit trying to fill Times shoes. Being edgey isnt your strong suit.

Moving on...

dadudemon
Originally posted by Sin I AM
People appreciate smart phone technology, we like the science of how are cable works (no-one is hassling the IT guy about what school he went to), every piece of equipment from calculators to microwave ovens involve science.

Meh, they are. They really are. I think it is worse for the IT guys. Bachelors from an online university? Looked over in the stack of resumes.

And MD is and MD is an MD no matter what college you went to. No one cares about that. As long as you're licenses. When is the last time you looked to see what college your MD went to? Your Climatologist? Exactly. No one cares.

Edit - I know people will do that internet thing so beforehand: licensed MDs. Of course some care but almost no one does. Etc. IT peeps get a lot of flack for where they attended college. Also, Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy for a reason. You're an authority because you probably know vivid and nuanced details about a particular topic and know the research and results off the top of your head.

Sin I AM
Originally posted by dadudemon
Meh, they are. They really are. I think it is worse for the IT guys. Bachelors from an online university? Looked over in the stack of resumes.

And MD is and MD is an MD no matter what college you went to. No one cares about that. As long as you're licenses. When is the last time you looked to see what college your MD went to? Your Climatologist? Exactly. No one cares.

Edit - I know people will do that internet thing so beforehand: licensed MDs. Of course some care but almost no one does. Etc. IT peeps get a lot of flack for where they attended college. Also, Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy for a reason. You're an authority because you probably know vivid and nuanced details about a particular topic and know the research and results off the top of your head.

Exactly. I use to work with IT guys who never received attention until sonething messed up. Sucks

MythLord
I fail to see why people can't use the term "Scientists said so...". I mean, of course I'd like a source just to brush up on the facts and I'd like to be introduced to the concept of a counter argument also based on science, but just denying it cause it might be biased or bought is how you get people thinking the Earth is flat.

Surtur
Originally posted by MythLord
I fail to see why people can't use the term "Scientists said so...". I mean, of course I'd like a source just to brush up on the facts and I'd like to be introduced to the concept of a counter argument also based on science, but just denying it cause it might be biased or bought is how you get people thinking the Earth is flat.

And at the same time though I think the higher the stakes are for the claim the more we need to know about who is claiming it.

I don't advocate outright denying something. On the other hand, wagging your finger at anyone daring to question it will not help either.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Surtur



Leave Steve alone. He is obviously in love with Rob, follows him around like a little puppy. I don't have the heart to just go "He's just not that into you". I almost feel bad for the poor little tyke.

Man those would be some Fuhgly kids...

MythLord
Originally posted by Surtur
And at the same time though I think the higher the stakes are for the claim the more we need to know about who is claiming it.

Honestly, the Who doesn't matter to me as much as the Why and the What. As in, why such a claim would be made and on what grounds. You don't need to be a big-name scientist to make a good breakthrough that's supported by empirical evidence.

I'm also always one for presenting empirical evidence as oppose to just saying Well, yeno, that guy said this!.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't advocate outright denying something. On the other hand, wagging your finger at anyone daring to question it will not help either.

To be fair, I don't think a lot of the people who refer to scientists want it to not be questioned, it's just a matter of much grounds someone would have for questioning it. If I was to set up a premise and the premise is disagreeable to you because of a logical reason you can back up, that's fine. But the majority can't accept facts because of a personal belief, political opinion or religion. It's willfull ignorance.

Surtur
I actually do not think some want it questioned at all. This is the impression I get. That if you question it at ALL you are a climate denier.

The hysteria has gotten to a point where some broken pumps and shit lead to flooding in New Orleans and some officials blamed...the pumps. Ha no, but one administration official said it was climate change.

It's an agenda for some, something to squawk about.

shiv
Science is advanced through asking questions.


Ask a scientist or someone who has trained as a scientist.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by shiv
Science is advanced through asking questions.


Ask a scientist or someone who has trained as a scientist.

That just leads us to the total sum of all of Man's knowledge being boiled down to just 4 words.

Surtur
Originally posted by shiv
Science is advanced through asking questions.


Ask a scientist or someone who has trained as a scientist.

But no, you can't ask them, because it's wrong. Neil Degrasse Tyson said so, and you literally can't find a single stupid thing the man has ever said assuming you do not google "stupid things Neil Degrasse Tyson has said".

He also doesn't fabricate quotes ether, shut your mouth about that and do not google it either.

shiv
there is no study that we can start or discovery that we can find without inquiry

Surtur
Originally posted by shiv
there is no study that we can start or discovery that we can find without inquiry

Yeah but...(insert Neil Degrasse Tyson quote). Check and...mate.

MythLord
Originally posted by Surtur
]I actually do not think some want it questioned at all. This is the impression I get. That if you question it at ALL you are a climate denier.

The hysteria has gotten to a point where some broken pumps and shit lead to flooding in New Orleans and some officials blamed...the pumps. Ha no, but one administration official said it was climate change.

It's an agenda for some, something to squawk about.

I think with issues like climate change, it's more because of the fact that there's so much proof of it that questioning it is considered unreasonable, and denying it far moreso.

At this point, enough data has been gathered around the world to suggest climate change is a serious thing, our environment is getting seriously damaged and our echosystems are starting to suffer a lot of consequences. This also manifests in day-to-day sh!t in a lot of countries, where weather patterns are all over the place.

And while I certainly understand where you're coming from with this statement: "I actually do not think some want it questioned at all. This is the impression I get. That if you question it at ALL you are a climate denier."

It works both ways. A lot of the people who "question" climate change give off the impression that they don't question it out of a logical reason, but rather outright deny it because it goes against their ideologies, beliefs, etc.

Flyattractor
What about those that treat Climate Change like it is a Ideological Belief? Which is what turns a lot of those "non believers" away from them...

MythLord
Already addressed it: it goes both ways. Neither extreme is good, but you can't justify one exteme by saying another exists.

Flyattractor
So Middle of the Lane Porridge with no Sugar is the the best way to go?

Sounds like a dull and taste less way to go about it.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>