Author

Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 141. (Read 636456 times)

hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1004
buy silver!
Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.
To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think. Never forget that arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

You realize everything you wrote apply to you too? I understand you believe exxon and shell are home monsters under your bed, keeping people knowing the truth about AGW. You can't believe the global warming scheme is breeding as much power and money, if not more. Why not? Because the cause is just, even if the science is not settled?

That is not a logical or scientific way of arguing against "deniers". Unless, of course you believe in fairy tales and dragons and magic hammers.
I believe in scientific method. I believe in climatology. I believe in evidence. What do you believe in? Fox fucking news? Sweet mercy of Satan, save me from these people.



post links to your evidence or stfu
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.
To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think. Never forget that arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

You realize everything you wrote apply to you too? I understand you believe exxon and shell are home monsters under your bed, keeping people knowing the truth about AGW. You can't believe the global warming scheme is breeding as much power and money, if not more. Why not? Because the cause is just, even if the science is not settled?

That is not a logical or scientific way of arguing against "deniers". Unless, of course you believe in fairy tales and dragons and magic hammers.
I believe in scientific method. I believe in climatology. I believe in evidence. What do you believe in? Fox fucking news? Sweet mercy of Satan, save me from these people.

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.
To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think. Never forget that arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

You realize everything you wrote apply to you too? I understand you believe exxon and shell are some monsters under your bed, keeping people knowing the truth about AGW. You can't believe the global warming scheme is breeding as much power and money, if not more. Why not? Because the cause is just, even if the science is not settled?

That is not a logical or scientific way of arguing against "deniers". Unless, of course you believe in fairy tales and dragons and magic hammers.


hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.
To clarify,  I was referring to the handful of scientists who sold their integrity to the fossil fuel industry. Not rando internet dipshits. No one cares what we think.

Note for readers: Arguing with the willfully ignorant is a fruitless exercise. If they wanted to know the truth they need only Google. The evidence paints a very clear picture, human beings are undeniably warming this planet. But these fuckwits are not interested in the truth, just anti-intellectual conspiracies that demonize the scientific community as profit-seekers while worshipping the fossil fuel industry.

The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.



Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/



Ok, if I change "where" to "were" then your sentence has a main verb and I can parse it, but I still don't understand it.

Subject: everybody x [relativeclause:  who x, [verbphrase: doubted as fact einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919]
Verb Phrase: were not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut

I can't tell if you're saying that they did or didn't keep their mouths shut.

My point was that if you don't accept the ground rules or framework of a conversation then you're probably not going to add anything useful.  For example, I don't accept the premise of God and so it would be strange for me to show up at a church and argue about how God expresses love for his creation or something like that.



Then everyone who does not believe in AGW is denying science. Is this what you believe?

At least you can express yourself in this thread, not being shut down for your belief. Ever. What a change!


legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.



Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/







Ohh the irony! Using the scientific method to prove science is wrong. You are most certainly confused.

Relativity is a correcting factor for Newtonian mechanics, it did not replace it. It simply adjusted for the very large and very fast.



Notice how the curves overlap at lower v < 0.2C?

Next time be informed with your rhetoric.
These days even for computing the date and time of the next lunar eclipse, relativity calculations are one of the ingredients.

So you have basically said, nothing.
sed
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.



Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/



Ok, if I change "where" to "were" then your sentence has a main verb and I can parse it, but I still don't understand it.

Subject: everybody x [relativeclause:  who x, [verbphrase: doubted as fact einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919]
Verb Phrase: were not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut

I can't tell if you're saying that they did or didn't keep their mouths shut.

My point was that if you don't accept the ground rules or framework of a conversation then you're probably not going to add anything useful.  For example, I don't accept the premise of God and so it would be strange for me to show up at a church and argue about how God expresses love for his creation or something like that.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.



Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/







Ohh the irony! Using the scientific method to prove science is wrong. You are most certainly confused.

Relativity is a correcting factor for Newtonian mechanics, it did not replace it. It simply adjusted for the very large and very fast.



Notice how the curves overlap at lower v < 0.2C?

Next time be informed with your rhetoric.




"CO2 is the primary culprit behind Climate Change"



Prove it.








sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.



Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/







Ohh the irony! Using the scientific method to prove science is wrong. You are most certainly confused.

Relativity is a correcting factor for Newtonian mechanics, it did not replace it. It simply adjusted for the very large and very fast.



Notice how the curves overlap at lower v < 0.2C?

Next time be informed with your rhetoric.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.



Everybody who doubted einstein's theory for years and years, until the eclipse of 1919 as fact, where not scientists and should have kept their collective mouth shut?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHQH4UPIFs

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/





sed
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
If you denied that people who don't believe in god, for example, should participate in a discussion about what god is like, wouldn't that make sense?

I'm just saying that if you don't believe in science then maybe you shouldn't be participating in a scientific discussion.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.

I don't think that most of the mega-corp energy companies are really all that threatened by the global climate catastrophe shenanigans.  Energy is actually worth a fair amount more than we pay for it currently so the markets will be damaged to some extent by higher prices for sure, but far from destroyed.

And with change comes opportunity.  When the govt jacks up the price of fuels by 10% in order to 'save the planet', they can give enough of a kick-back in the form of corporate welfare to the mega-corps to make it worth their while.  That's why they have lobbyists.  Also they can tack on another couple percent and it will be blamed on the govt (and the greens making it a stupid policy politically) and generally lost in the noise.  It's getting generally more difficult to dig up energy anyway so alternate forms of revenue and probably quite welcome to the Exxon-Mobil's of the world.

I'm a reasonably well-off individual in a rich country.  Higher energy prices will be a nuisance, but not much more.  Other less fortunate souls will simply die in various poverty associated problems (disease, war, etc.)  This is not unlike denying food to a colony of bacteria in a petri dish.  If one reads the philosophies of some of the movers and shakers in the 'eco' sphere, this is pretty much what they are anticipating and in fact welcoming in order to 'save the planet.'

legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
You know its funny. People like us are called conspiracy theorists simply for pointing out that climatologists have a very strong incentive to exaggerate the severity of AGW. But when you listen to true believers everything is part of some monolithic conspiracy to these guys. If you question their narrative they will actually accuse you of being paid by "the oil companies" or "the koch brothers". Literally if you make some hokey little low production value youtube video dissenting to their narrative than they will say you must have been paid by "the oil companies" to make that video. These true believers are some of the biggest conspiracy theorists on the planet. I don't say that to be mean, i believe in several conspiracies myself, the point i want to make is that main stream culture never marginalizes these people in the way it does other conspiracy theorists. Its interesting. It seems that the culture creation industry doesn't have anything against conspiracy theories on principle. It seems that it doesn't like particular conspiracy theories and so attempts to marginalize the proponents of those conspiracies by pretending as if there is a principle of conspiracies are invalid, but then as soon as its own pet conspiracies are brought to the fore... crickets...

Not really about warmies so much as it is about the culture creation industry in general, of which AGW is a part, but related at least, and interesting i think.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon



Harvard Scientists Claim Global Warming Causing Mummies In Chile To Turn Into ‘Black Ooze’…


The world’s oldest mummies are at risk of disappearing because of man-made climate change, according to a group of Harvard University scientists.

Bodies mummified about 7,000 years ago in Chile are starting to rapidly degrade, the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences said Monday in an e-mailed statement.

Tests by Harvard’s Alice DeAraujo and Ralph Mitchell show that microbes that flourish in an increasingly humid climate are turning the preserved remains of Chinchorro hunter-gatherers into “black ooze”.

“Is there a scientific answer to protect these important historic objects from the devastating effects of climate change?” said Mitchell. “It’s almost a forensic problem.”

Mitchell, who has pinpointed the causes of decay in everything from the walls of King Tutankhamun’s tomb to Apollo space suits, worked with DeAraujo on mummies supplied by Marcela Sepulveda, professor of archaeology at the University of Tarapaca in Chile.

While museums can control their environments to preserve artefacts, many Chinchorro mummies are buried just beneath the surface in valleys that are experiencing higher humidity levels due to climate change, Sepulveda said.

“In the last 10 years, the process has accelerated,” said Sepulveda, commenting on the decay suffered by the 120 mummies in Tarapaca’s archaeological museum.



http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/united-states/story/ancient-mummies-turn-black-ooze-because-climate-change-20150310



--------------------------------------------------
Please pay your carbon tax now to stop the mummies from dying!

 Smiley



legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry

You got me dead to rights. Exxon mobil is paying me 7 dollars for this comment alone.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 123
"PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank U"
Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry,  and the scientific community is right to shun, mock, and discredit them.



You mean the warmists are doing the carbon tax push shenanigan out of love, not for the love of money and power? You mean scientists are working for free and never ask for grants, or better tools and top of the line labs?




let him believe, he will be thought IRL and then he will agree until it, he certainly cloaks his malice by "caring"... ignore the ignorants Smiley.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry,  and the scientific community is right to shun, mock, and discredit them.



You mean the warmists are doing the carbon tax push shenanigan out of love, not for the love of money and power? You mean scientists are working for free and never ask for grants, or better tools and top of the line labs?


hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
I loathe the phrase "climate change". It's a weak euphemism for climate catastrophe that utterly fails to capture the desperate urgency of changing our toxic, abusive relationship with this planet. If only we could glance the suffering our selfishness will reap upon our grandchildren.

Climate destruction deniers are and aways have been the paid shills of the fossil fuel industry,  and the scientific community is right to shun, mock, and discredit them.
Jump to: