Pepin Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 The title is taken from the article. http://www.iflscience.com/environment/conspiracy-theorists-get-paper-withdrawn-through-bogus-legal-threat I am completely confused by these articles. Climate change might be a thing or might not, I'm not really willing to take a stance, but the tone in these articles feel completely off. The words and the mentality just feels bigoted. It is so weird because I don't see this in any other topic of scientific debate, or even in the atheist community. I am open to climate change being a possibility. I am in the favor of markets to bring about more environmentally friendly practices. So many resources are wasted due to government use and government intervention. I could go on a rant, but these articles make me feel like I might be leaning towards the wrong side. Uhg, perhaps I ought to be focusing on the fact that it got pulled, but I don't think I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Are you talking about Lewandowsky's article. Or the article about Lewandowsky's article? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lewandowsky is basically claiming that: if you don't accept global warming then your likely to not accept the holocaust, the moon landing, and evolution. And even worse, you reject these theories and events for reasons that are not based on rational thinking. Is that what he says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Think Free Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 I don't see this in any other topic of scientific debate Then I don't think you're looking hard enough. "Climate change science" might be the most egregious example, but almost every field of science has a minority position or "competing pseudoscientific theory" that is treated in the way that seems completely inconsistent with rational, openminded science, even if it is completely wrong. You can read about some examples in Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan. Or you can read about another example in The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin. It seems to me that "science" isn't what is used to be. Specifically, it's increasingly a tool for shaping public opinion. This in the face of mounting evidence that "scientific" "rigor" is disastrously ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Gibbons Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Playlist for climate change skepticism If you want to learn more about the arguments, follow the links and show notes below the videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Mason Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 One of the best ways to debate climate science is to ignore if its happening and ask the real question - what is to be done.You could spend hours tossing data back and forth and both sides have a lot of pre-rehersed arguments. There are sites with every statement and a prerehearsed reply. The debate is a waste of time.Here is the reply to any climate change debator "If you think climate change is occuring then by all means use any voluntary, non-forceful, cooperative, agoristic means at your disposal to fight it. Good luck with that." Don't ever let someone mug you in their alley, mug them in yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Gibbons Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 There is no debate about the fact that climate changes, however there is a debate about the extent to which humans are an influencing factor. I highly recommend anyone fuddled in their virginity to this "argument" to at least watch this well-put together report by a unique climate observer: I'd like to hear your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trodas Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 if you don't accept global warming then your likely to not accept the holocaust, the moon landing, and evolution Count me IN then! As the cold records beat the heat records, there is no global warming. Period. There is a more weather unstability, but that is linked to the Sun undergoing the magnetic flip. That it is. Humans have nothing to do with it. Who believe that nonsense, must answer from questions first, w/o looking on Google: 1) how much the "bad CO2" are in atmosphere anyway? ... Answer: 0.0385% ... do you really believe, that this insignificant gas can change anything? The "precious" cas Argon is more that 24 times present in the atmosphere! So, get real, CO2 folks! 2) how big is the Sun, compared to the planes? ... Answer: 99.866% of whole Sun system weight is the Sun! So if you looking for something to blame for the climate extremes, then blame Sun: See the problem? 3) What do you learn from Climategate? ... In case you don't know, then the exponencial warming was based on only one specific tree, when all others did not show any increase at all. So from all and all the tests, these cherrypicking liars take this: See the problem now? 4) How do you read this news: http://canadianawareness.org/2013/02/ipcc-head-rajendra-pachauri-acknowledges-17-year-stall-in-global-warming/ "The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures." Do you interpret the "no discrenible rise" in global temperatures as heating? If yes, then you need a reality check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts