Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Climate Change Lecture by Dr Jim White


LogicalFallacy

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

What is funny as hell to me is that for all those who think they are "Enlightened", if you remove the Bible, all the religious trappings, and instead, replace them with studies and stats claiming the world is warming and the world is going to end coming from someone with a PhD.  They have been saying this for close to 30 years.  They have been wrong so far.  Yet, for such "Enlightened" ones who rejected Christianity for good reason, appear to have adopted this subject with religious furvor.  When the predictions fall short, they have no more credibility with me than the phony fire and brimstone evangelists preaching "The END IS NIGH...and THEY CAN PROVE IT IN DA BIBAL".  Both Christians and true believers in glow bull warming  sound alike and almost act alike.  They all scream like monkeys in the forest when you don't buy their snake oil.  

 

What a load of bullshit. Do you even read what is being talked about. Do you even bother to watch videos posted? No because if you did you'd know no reliable source says they world will end and in response to JPs talk about hurricanes I posted a vid showing it was a hype up by media. No scientist is saying the world will end in the next 100 years. Get with the program. We are beyond your little rants about how nothing can be trusted. 

 

Oh and regardless of the cause the earth has been warming for millennia so warming is a fact. You of course are entitled to belive it's cooling... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Burnedout said:

What is funny as hell to me is that for all those who think they are "Enlightened", if you remove the Bible, all the religious trappings, and instead, replace them with studies and stats claiming the world is warming and the world is going to end coming from someone with a PhD.  They have been saying this for close to 30 years.  They have been wrong so far.  Yet, for such "Enlightened" ones who rejected Christianity for good reason, appear to have adopted this subject with religious furvor.  When the predictions fall short, they have no more credibility with me than the phony fire and brimstone evangelists preaching "The END IS NIGH...and THEY CAN PROVE IT IN DA BIBAL".  Both Christians and true believers in glow bull warming  sound alike and almost act alike.  They all scream like monkeys in the forest when you don't buy their snake oil.  

You clearly know nothing about science and the scientific method. Science can and will be off the mark sometimes, but it's a hell of lot more realistic than phony fire and brimstone preachers, so equating the two is utterly ridiculous.  And there's no reason to lambast people simple because they've gotten themselves a PhD and an education. But what else is to be expected from the resident troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RealityCheck said:


Yes, I'm aware of the facts and I know the purpose of this thread.  I'm just making an observation, everyone is willing to have this conversation periodically but at the end of the day, everyone will go on living their high carbon lifestyles.  It's also easy to understand while someone might be suspect of the data, if there is money to be made on something then you should at least exercise some level of skepticism.

I do want to hear your response on the last point I made.  Western civilization came about due to heavy use of fossil fuels.  How would you tell developing nations (the ones who's carbon emissions are steadily rising according to the data I presented) that they can't do the same?  That they can't lift their citizens out of disease and poverty?  Would you think they'd be equipped to handle the challenges of climate change as a 3rd world nation or as a developed one?  What is the path that minimizes human suffering?  See, this last point is rarely touched upon and flips the selfishness argument on its head.

As said in the video, it's a question of ethics. The way I see it, we're all in this together, we only have one planet. I can also see that the first world has in many cases exploited resources in and taken advantage of what we now call third world countries. So you shouldn't be too surprised if I say this is an area where everyone has to work together to lift people out of poverty. And no, there is no easy solution to this. And I don't think those who are realistic about the problems this planet is facing are saying that we have to leave the third world countries as they are, either, and tell them they can't develop by any measure. In fact, he pointed out that if we leave them in deep poverty, of course they will have no focus for any such thing as the challenges that this planet is facing, all of their focus will go towards simple survival.

I totally agree with the last point made in the presentation regarding empowering women, economically and politically. Until women are truly free from the pressures that they are under in what has long been a male dominated system, and given real control over their lives, we can't control the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

 

I have university degree. It may not be in a science field, but I had to take a number of science courses.  I am simply being honest.  People are so willing to accept what is said, what is written simply because that PhD is by their name. I am not criticising all people in science, or any other field with a PhD.  I just criticise the people who have switched from listening to a preacher because they have been to seminary, or Bible college, to blindly, or with little skepticism, to one or many of those scientists who are are shouting from the rooftops that the end is nigh.  If the predictions from those people are consistently wrong, which, last I looked, NY City, Miami, and all the other coastal towns and cities are still well above water, the places I know here in Florida are doing just fine and not sinking beneath the waves, the world as we know it is still here.  Those early predictions were saying we would be in dire straits by now have not come to be, well then the only thing I can conclude is they are wrong and don't really know what the fuck they are talking about, AND I am not going to be gullible enough to buy what they're saying.  Until I see with myown eyes what they are saying, I don't buy it.  Dat simple. 

If you would have watched the video, you'd have understood that we're talking about incremental changes here, not places all of a sudden being swamped with water over a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

The predictions were dire, but when they didn't happen, they reframed it to "incremental change" so as to save face and placed it conveniently out far enough so as to not have any real consequences for themselves.  They are still lackeys for government and I still don't trust them. 

Ah thank you sooooo much for clarifying the issue for me. /end sarcasm. As stated before, reality doesn't care about opinions, or conspiracy theories, one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

 

It is evident that you know how to be sarcastic with just a touch of self-righteous, here is a novel idea.  Since you think GW has credence, why don't you say why I should believe the information coming out of that field actually are on the level.  You can pretend it is beneath you to do so, but it just further confirms my cynicism.

I'm done here with you, if you want to label me self-righteous, go right ahead, that's a novel defense to make yourself feel better. I've long since figured out some types on here don't want to have an actual conversation, I can have it elsewhere, and as someone pointed out, actually do something about changing reality instead of talking about it online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     So I had a couple of spare minutes and decided to wander around the YouTubes, as that is the sacred "texts" for those around these parts it seems.  I came across a short conspiracy type video (also know as "the truth") on Walter Cronkite reporting on the coming Ice Age back in 1972:

 

     Now, feel free to skip the junk and just watch old Walt read his report if you like.  It's edited ever so slightly with the fade-in but if you pay attention you'll hear the name "Professor Hubert Lamb" at the top of the report.  You can read about him at Wikipedia.

 

     Turns out old Hugh is the one who thunk this all up.  So when Walt reports on this, well, he's being honest.  This one scientist says this is what's happening.

 

     I know we have folks familiar with the Medieval Warming Period.  Well, guess who is responsible for that?  Go on.  Guess.  If you guessed old Ice Age Hugh then you'd be right!

 

     And what's more?  He also thought that global warming could be a problem within the next century.

 

     The man was full of surprises.

 

     But, as for that ice age?  As it says at that Wiki page his book says something like begin in something like 3,000 to 7,000 years.  On geologic scale that's really quickly.  Apparently, no one else thought to understand what he was saying and overlooked his comments on global warming coming in the next century which is, well, sooner.

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I have been saying that when one digs to the bottom of this stuff there is either not much substance, it's been misreported, or misunderstood. 

 

Does he have any relation to the scientists who at one stage suggested a shutdown of the gulfstream could plunge Europe into Canadian type winters?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Why would anyone think that scientists of multiple disciplines and working in multiple countries would conspire to dupe the public yet the oil industry with their vested interest has no such agenda to further their own ends?

 

When obvious global changes like losing ice cover, glaciers breaking, sea levels rising in some areas, water and air temperatures rising, unprecedented weather related disasters often in unprecedented places can so easily be dismissed, that just reeks of confirmation bias and denial. Science is not a liberal plot, though education (apparently another liberal plot) can be quite a thorn in the side of deniers. "Do not believe what you see or hear, listen only to your Anointed Leader."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

What is ironic is that BO who claims we are the religious ones is closer to Christians who do claim plots and conspiracies by science etc. Projection much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

What is ironic is that BO who claims we are the religious ones is closer to Christians who do claim plots and conspiracies by science etc. Projection much?

 

I put BO on ignore years ago.  He's full of shit and not worth any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The physics and chemistry which underly climate change are fairly straightforward. I've known, and studied under,  quite a few physicists and chemists who were not in the pocket of the government.  They all took climate change very seriously.  Of course,  that doesn't mean that it's true necessarily,  but it does mean that is isn't just some kind of government conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
30 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

I put BO on ignore years ago.  He's full of shit and not worth any time.

Yes well I might be slightly insane and keep trying to get something other than conspirosy or abuse out of him. As he'd say I'm young and unwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, Burnedout said:

The ones who claim rationality are the ones who ARE indeed acting like Christians.  

 

Christian says "you just don't understand the scriptures"

 

The GW believer says "you just don't understand science"

 

You don't... clearly. Fact that Christians say that about scriptures has little bearing on understating anything else. I don't understand quantum physics or calculus. Doesn't make it wrong because someone tells me I don't understand. Maybe read a book? You are essentially using a false analogy but we expect and in fact predict that from you.

Quote

 

The Christians says "DA TRIBULATION IZ KOMIN".

 

The GW believer says "sea level will rise and cities will be under water.

 

You strawman builder you. So cute. Of course if your source is Al Gore... Well you are a fuckwit, but stop projecting his clap trap onto us.

 

Quote

 

There is no evidence *I* have seen. 

 

And I haven t personally seen evidence of hurricanes so... Yeah they don't exist. My thesis is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

 The only think I CARE about is the bottom line.  Do they get it right or not? 

As stated before, science doesnt always get it right. Hypotheses are made and then tested. Extremely difficult to do in the area of global warming or change which occurs over hundreds and thousands of years.

Your ideological/political underpinnings are blinding you to further consideration of the topic, your opinion is well known, and since you have little to do here besides lecture people on how stupid their opinions are, why not just call it a day and let the people who want to talk about science without a constant anti-science bias blinding them, discuss it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Yes well I might be slightly insane and keep trying to get something other than conspirosy or abuse out of him. As he'd say I'm young and unwise. 

Well, the option is always there.  Trust me, it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
23 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Ideological?  WHO is it that made the predictions and got it wrong, not just once, or twice, but virtually EVER TIME?  That is not ideological.  It tells me, when you boil it all down, they don't know shit.  If those so-called experts are going to try to rope the US into the circle jerk known as the Paris Climate Accord and extort more money from ME, well that affects ME.  That is not ideological, that is financial theft in the name of science.  If it were not going to cost me directly from my wallet, I really would not give a shit, but it does.  

 

You can all have your little pretend science circle jerk.  This subject is sooth saying pretending to be science. 

 

Funny enough creationists say the same about evolution.

 

If there is a proper analogy here it is you are the creationist who proclaims everything from conspiracy to no evidence and essentially asking for a dog to give birth to a cat. Well I'm sorry you don't understand the science and your reasoning is up the proverbial Californian redwood!

 

I think that TS is correct, this is ideological for you, you just won't admit it. You are against taxes (One of the political solutions is tax), organisations, authority of any type, and anything that might impose on your wish to do whatever the fuck you want. Someone else on this site has pointed out that unfortunately for you other people live on this planet and many of us would like it left in reasonable condition for the next generations.

 

The scientists have been saying it will warm since at least the 70's. It's warming. Ice melt and the arctic breaking up is also a probable result. (See my recent news article). Sea level rise is also predicted and that is happening. The fact that you don't happen to see it jump 3 feet overnight is irrelevant.

 

Anyway I'm preaching to either the choir or those who would never be convinced. There is no way I can present your vaunted independent scientist who agrees about AGW, as any independent who does agree with the consensus is ipso facto by your book part of the paid mob whose primary goal it seems is to extract money from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

All of a sudden BO trusts government when it suits him :P :funny:

 

The irony.

 

I responded to this in depth in another thread. When you look into it even the "insider" is not admitting what you say he is admitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records   This is NOT MY opinion.  This is verbatum from the congressional record.  You, who claims to be objective, and trust NASA, well this is from an insider who ADMITTED the data is flawed.  This is not cherry picked or made up or any other excuse you will use. 

 

Full Document:  https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/NOAA Karl Study One-Pager.pdf 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_Smith

Tells you all you need to know. A trusted source, indeed.

"As the Head of the House Science Committee, Smith has been criticized for his position on climate change and for receiving funding from oil and gas companies.[2][3][4][5][6][7] He was formerly a contributor to Breitbart News.[8]"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
26 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_Smith

Tells you all you need to know. A trusted source, indeed.

"As the Head of the House Science Committee, Smith has been criticized for his position on climate change and for receiving funding from oil and gas companies.[2][3][4][5][6][7] He was formerly a contributor to Breitbart News.[8]"

 Ya beat me to one of my points.

 

Unbiased critic *cough*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Ok kids... maybe we should stop feeding the troll? I know it can be fun.... might he might get indigestion :D 

 

BO, if you are going to argue with somebody, might I suggest, for once in your life (And I know this will be hard) but for once try and argue against their actual position and beliefs?

 

You seem to think that trust an reliability goes from be cynical (You) to absolute 100% faith (Nobody here but you keep claiming such)

 

Look its fun playing with you from time to time, but it quickly gets boring because you keep bleating on about the same old debunked stuff like a creationist.

 

And for everyone else's entertainment (As I doubt BO would bother watching this) see these vids about data fraud. It's informative... and quite funny.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

LF,

 

It doesn't matter what you think or want.  Trump and Congress are defunding the PHONY pretend science of GLOW BULL WARMING.  The Supreme Court will be stacked with sane judges.  Those who think like you will whine.  This thing is over for the rest of my life.  The justices Trump appoints will be around longer than I will be.  It doesn't matter what your little country does.  Keep praying to your little GW gods.  They are about as powerful as the Bible god. 

Ah, Trump appointees are gonna be the sane ones. Gotcha. No ideological/ political bias, no none at all. Feel free to keep arguing with LF if you want, you're quite transparent, any reasonable person reading this discussion can see that clear as day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2018 at 4:52 PM, Geezer said:

When something becomes a tradition in religion it becomes sacred and once it reaches that status it becomes virtually impossible to change it or do away with it.

 

The same is true for science and history. Once a consensus is reached it becomes sacred. And once that happens no amount of evidence will likely change its status. And those that challenge a consensus, or a tradition, will pay a heavy price as a lesson to others not to challenge authority. 

 

 

 

Science is not a democracy! It's a consensus. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.